Talk:Mai Shiranui/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quotes

I think maybe we have too many quotes. Perhaps we should move them to Wikiquote. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that thesis. Anons and User:The Ogry have been going berserk on character articles concerning quotes, and its been a literal invasion. What I'm asking, is why..? So far, not a soul has been able to give me concensus for inserting all this (worthless) quotes into articles, and furthurmore, why they use subsections for each game. I was just thinking of deleting them and leaving in a few, but your idea seems somewhat more constructive. -ZeroTalk 20:05 8,December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the complete text of quotes there. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Relationship With Andy

I think the credit to Andy was just a little -too- vague. All canonical games clearly show at the very least he has viewed himself as a "lover" to her countless times, but just as much he prefers not to show it and does have those "sister" views (usually from the older games) I also think that many subliminal hints in MOTW (among other KOFS) suggest that the absent of these two fighters from many games have been anything but a coincedence, though there is no substantial proof it is purely romanctical reasons. As far as the relationship they had in the anime not being considered "canonical" this may be true, albit I think, much like SF2, many of the ideas from the anime/anime movies do indeed "Cross Over" into the game. Kim Kaphwan's sons are an -excellent- example of this, much less the predominant relationship of Andy and Mai.

I agree. I feel this is more based on speculation. Cuz no Official SNK source or any statements by the developers confirm them being together at all. Andy sees her like a sister in a way since he grew up with her. And he is too scared to admit to Mai that he doesn’t love her in that way. Plus the games don’t seem to make any hints that he even loves her back. So good statement. SG1994! (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Plus to top it all off Nady views her as a sister than a lover. It’s just Mai that loves him like a lover. Andy seems to avoid her as much as he can. Though he admits he feels sorry for her and hangs out with her just to make her happy. But not for romantical reasons. SG1994! (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Andy* SG1994! (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

History section

I've gone through and somewhat de-POVed and encylopedia-ified the History section, but it needs citing by game, as right now the history seems seamless. It could take place in one game, two games, an anime, a manga, or anything really. The pics attribute their source, no less should the back story. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

.GIF

I think it is important to put the .gif in. After all, it was her true appearance. Those pics are just concept art. We need to show the actual thing. King Wario 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I asssure you, the Neo Wave art is not concept art. It is clearly in official status, and matches with the template in conformity like the rest of the KOF articles. However, I see no problem with the gif itself, I just believe it does not go in the template, and it is not consistant between articles. If we were in pocession of a gif for say, every KOF article, then it would be fine (Like the Street Fighter articles), but we don't, and the gif doesn't add any content to the article that the pictures already acomplish. -ZeroTalk 06:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Little Sister?

I've played every King of Fighters, Fatal Fury and all their spin-offs and I don't ever remember Andy thinking of Mai as a little sister. That statement kind of weirds me out because I clearly remember them kissing in one of the games, the movie and in official art. So I was wondering if me or somebody else could change it? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PowaaMan (talk • contribs) .

No they haven't. Andy, in fact, tries to avoid Mai whenever he can. What you're referring to is the manga/and or anime which aren't canonical and therefore aren't valid.-ZeroTalk 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but there are some clear references to "going on dates" in Fatal Fury 3, Realbout Fatal Fury and Realbout Special, some of them initiated by Andy. This is not including the numerous pics in endings which show them together hugging, eating together, or going on vacation. Also a funny thing to note is that in a number of King of Fighters (99, 2001 and 2002) Mai and Andy have an intro with Mai showing him a baby which cries out Papa or daddy or something like that. Hmmmm... do you think Andy would freak out so bad if he hadn't done "something" to Mai which would allow her to have a baby? Ha ha ha. Anyways, do you agree now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powaaman (talk • contribs)
No fair! I wish I could confirm your thesis, but I haven't played those KOF's in awhile... Looks as if I'll have to take your word on it. -ZeroTalk 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do agree he might love her but his obsession with surpassing terry gets in the way to the point where there relationship would have no future. Andy give it up you shall never be better than terry and marry mai already.--Vipa Human 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but Real Bout Fatal Fury Special's endings are cannonical, nor are any of the events in The King Of Fighters (To the original Fatal Fury storyline). Also, that intro of Mai and Andy in KOF2k1 with the baby is just an illusion Mai uses to trick Andy. 66.66.99.93 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) That Man

Actually no the endings are NOT canonical as they all take place after one character defeats the final boss. Also Andy doesn’t have romantic feelings for Mai. He admits he feels sorry for her. Which is why he occasionally hangs out with her. But he often times tries to avoid her. SG1994! (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

66.66.99.93 I take it that was a typo. Cuz I’m certain you meant to say the “Real Bout Fatal Fury Special Endings are NOT canonical, nor are the events of The King Of Fighters” SG1994! (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Bust Size" line removal

The line stated that "Despite being depicted otherwise, Mai has only the fourth largest bust size of all female The King of Fighters characters, coming in at 87 cm (Around 33-34 inches) compared to Angel and Shermie's 92 cm , Vice and Elisabeth 90 cm busts, and Blue Mary and Mature's 88 cm busts."

But this is not an accurate way to measure bustline. The measurement of 87 cm is the entire torso around the chest. This is completely different from cup size, which is a measurement of just the breast. In other words, a woman with a small breasts but a thicker torso could have bigger measurements than a woman with a small torso with larger breasts. So the statement is inaccurate, and there is no actual way to determine the winner of this...contest. So I removed the line.Xenon Zaleo 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OVA information

Would anyone get incredibly upset if both sections was shorten down to this?

Film and Video

Mai Shiranui is a character in the following movies:

  • Battle Fighters Garou Densetsu 2/Fatal Fury 2 - The New Battle (1993) - Sarah Sawatsky provides the voice of Mai in the English version, while Kotono Mitsuishi provides the voice of Mai in the Japanese version.
  • Garou Densetsu - The Motion Picture/Fatal Fury - The Motion Picture (1994) - Lisa Ann Beley provides the voice of Mai in the English version, while Kotono Mitsuishi provides the voice of Mai in the Japanese version.
  • The King of Fighters: Another Day (2006) - Mai makes an appearance in the episode "All Out," voiced by Akoya Sogi, her in-game voice actor for the Japanese version, and her English voice actor in the English version.

Then we can add little footnotes after this that made those appearances unique (or different from the games). I did this with Andy and Joe, but wanted to put this out before I get barraged by a bunch of negative comments because it's Mai (popular). Sake neko 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Article poorly written

Anymore than Bucky B. Katt get's his own article, I suggest Mai's article be re-written from an outsider's POV, as this current article reads like a letter from GamePro's letter section. There are many phrases that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, and also not enough detail to boot. If a person who doesn't know about Mai stumbles into the article, they'd be lost. Coffee4binky (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but Im not very good with grammar. I suppose the other media needs trimming, but I have never watched the Fatal Fury films. Anyway, who is Bucky B. Katt?Tintor2 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That’s what happens when you allow people to edit your sites. People put wrong information and some that are taken out of context and also more speculated than fact. SG1994! (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Massive changes

There have been some massive changes to the article without a valid reason. Some of these include making a blank section of gameplay, giving a character section which is completely unsourced, or separating out-of-universe info regarding the staff's thoughts about the characters. Please reach a consensus before making these changes or it will be labelled as vandalism. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no "massive changes". Now the stuff is MOVED OUT OF INTRO into its own propr section (also from Appearance, merged), redlinks are removed, italics are inserted where it's needed, and the section Appearance is no longer confusing along with the section Appearances. I mean, Jesus. --Asperchu (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also stop being idiot, do you seriously belive TWO SENTENCES in the whole article about who she is in the game (and not how she looks) is any "fancruft"? Also I removed the stuff about "buttocks" and what not, WHICH WAS IN THE INTRO before my "massive edits". WTF. --Asperchu (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By "massive changes" I meant the reorganizing of the article, giving a section focusing in the in-universe aspects completely unsourced (which seems to want fancruft), making a blanked one. By the way, read Civility before discussing. You have been insulting over and over and this is an encyclopedia.Tintor2 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of reading, maybe you would sometimes actually read the articles you want to revert before reverting. And the Gameplay section I've seen in many other articles, and the tag "empty section" is valid because it exists, but hey, whatever. --Asperchu (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, "Other Stuff" is not a valid argument.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:I Don't Like This Tag is also your excuse? And why didn't you just remove the empty section, instead MINDLESSLY reverting to "buttocks" and stuff IN THE INTRO? --Asperchu (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Because of all I said above. Giving a blanked section will just lead to users to add to unsourced statements.Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. You revert to "funcruft" section in the intros of the articles, because you hate this fancraft so much. Okay, you're a strange guy. --Asperchu (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And you keep ignoring what I said and keep making uncivil comments.Tintor2 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And you ill just keep denying that what you did what stupid. Okay, enough from me here. --Asperchu (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I already stated all the reasons for my edits.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So, now please explain my why you thought the stuff about her "buttocks" was so essentional to had to be placed in this article's intro. Because you didn't. My guess was your edit was mindless and very stupid in this aspect. Your version? --Asperchu (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I already explained every reason for my changes. Hadn't you enough here or you will keep asking and making informal comments?Tintor2 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Change?

I know the current image is official art, but I find it wholly inadequate for an article on a cartoon character famous for her gigantic bust. A simple Google Image Search yields all sorts of superior images. Surely we can add something to show why she is such a popular character? Back57557 (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this guy but he has a point. 174.126.88.11 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression Mai wasn't nearly as big when she first showed up and that they've only become larger as time went on, making that official artwork a lot more accurate than some people are willing to accept. I think you guys probably just don't like that she's not bursting out in it.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone added an animated gif of pixelated anime tits. Is the article encyclopedic enough for you now? 69.49.67.186 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone knows who was the original creator of Mai?

There's apparently nothing on the English Internet except some people wondering the same thing. And yes, there could be some better illustration for this article. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

SNK has never said what designer created their respective characters until now as they actually collaborate together.Tintor2 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mai Shiranui/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    While some quotation is acceptable, I feel that the reception goes a little too far in what it uses. I would be a lot more satisfied with that section in particular if it used quoting sparingly.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What makes SpoonyOne a reliable source? This question for myfigurecollection, toymania, Classic Gaming, Complex, CraveOnline, GameFront, TechCrunch, FMH, and Wild Gunmen. Additionally, deviantart cannot be used as a reference.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The bouncing breasts image, while potentially useful, uses a poor rationale, that implies something that is not shown in the article (at least if it is, I did not see it). The comic image caption does not illustrate to me what it is, and actually discusses things that are not related to the comic besides discussing something featured in it. The comic image itself does not provide a strong rationale for why it is featured, either.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    While it has promise, the reception section needs to be fixed, many of the sources are of questionable reliability, and the image captions and rationales need improvement. I'll give you about a week to fix these things up a bit before I give it another look over (and of course, I will check in for your comments on mine). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before. --Niemti (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

SpoonyOne, Classic Gaming, Complex, CraveOnline, GameFront, TechCrunch, FHM (not "FMH"). (But Wild Gunmen is just a blog.) It calls itself a magazine, and appears to even have a printed edition (and address), but I'm not sure about it (especially since I don't see ads on it, even as they're asking for ads) - there's a case for it but it's not very strong. MyFigureCollection.net is just for toys, not news or opinions, and I don't see "toymania" anywhere replaced with official website, even turned out there was a second CG figure. The deviantART account is really Warren's official website (such times are now). There s The comic illustration is for to the issue of the absence of Mai in KOFXII (the game, because she is in the comic) and the critical reactions to it, which is all in the caption. Also, the "Article" link above (at the top) links to Richard O'Connor (politician). --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that last note, copypasted over to trip the bot but I messed up on doing it. Wizardman 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that having an article does not entail that the sources are reliable; it only indicates that the sources are discussed by reliable sources. Anyway, I'm fairly swamped right now, and as much as I hate to have to do it, I'm going to have to fail the article. I would have loved to provide some assistance if I had the time, but as it stands, there is simply too much work to be done in the GA period. Sources need heavy tweaking, quotations are very excessive and don't feel like they are a part of the article, and from what I've seen, some copyediting problems that I wouldn't be much help with. I suggest that you try to fix up the other GAs you have as much as you can, wait until your other GAs have finished their reviews, and place this one - and only this one - at Peer Review. While it is certainly no crime to do many nominations or reviews for your content, you are stretching yourself far too thin; having to focus on fixing problems in so many articles at once is simply too much for anyone to handle without taking a lot of time to do. If you work on only a couple at a time, it will be easier to work on them, and easier for editors to work with you to help the copyediting problems. I hope that you take my advice in stride; we haven't had any problems editing together, and it'd be a shame to have any now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And whatever makes them unreliable for the stuff they say here (mostly voicing their own reception opinions)? --Niemti (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to reliability, it's important to establish it; as such, it's up to the person proposing a source as a reliable one, as opposed to the person objecting to a source to prove that they are unreliable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
But what can be unreliable about a personal opinion about a fictional character (coming from a major source)? --Niemti (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a fairly strict set of guidelines set up to prevent unreliable sources from being used. The reliable sources page will explain what a source must accomplish to be reliable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question: how can a major publication's own opinion about a fictional character be ever possibly considered "unreliable" by anyone? --Niemti (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is, what makes Spoony's opinion more reliable for inclusion than mine? What sets him apart from the billions of people who could theoretically have opinions about a subject on Wikipedia? Being big and being a reliable source are two entirely different things. Spoony is, until demonstrated otherwise, not reliable for his opinion on Mai Shiranui because there is no appropriate argument to say that his opinion is that of an expert or professional in the field. Reliable sources must show that what they write has editorial oversight, among other things. The sources must prove that they can be used on Wikipedia. I have a blog - not a terribly big one, but it's got a fair amount of traffic - so what is stopping me from being a reliable source, to say that Mai Shiranui is a good/bad/ugly character? WP:RS. We need to have quality standards for who is used as sources in articles, is all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know you don't have a vlog popular/notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. (And so are "the billions of people who could theoretically have opinions about a subject on Wikipedia".) You could rather argue he might be unreliable because he turned out to be in fact batshit insane which is why they kicked him out (or so I heard and never cared enough to verify it). In fact I also added Anita at the end, even as I personally think she's very unreliable (but this is only my opinion). --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Popularity and reliability are two different things I'm afraid. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And what can be unreliable about an opinion? Like, a possibilty that somebody lied about their opinion or what? --Niemti (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
They aren't reliable experts on the subject of video games. It doesn't matter what they say, unless they are considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, they cannot be used. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
And I'm pretty one doesn't need to be a certified "reliable expert on the subject of video games" to rate boobs. In fact, I think men's magazines are perfectly qualified to rate boobs, and possibly more than "reliable experts on the subject of video games". --Niemti (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not want to keep saying the same thing. Standards exist to prevent low quality sources being used on Wikipedia. The fact is, the only qualifying value for, say, Spoony, is that he is popular. Popularity, and even having your own Wikipedia article, are elements that show that he is a person that people know. Just because he is presenting his opinion does not make it acceptable to use it on Wikipedia. Every single source used on Wikipedia must assert that it is a quality source that should be used, even if it is only for that source's opinions. If we let Spoony get a free pass for popularity, a qualifier that is sketchy to be using, people will say "this source is popular, just like Spoony, so let's use it!" We must have standards. If you feel that Spoony's opinion should be acceptable to display on Wikipedia, then you must make a proposal at the Video Games WikiProject's reliable sources page. That's all there is to it. As this discussion is going in circles, I won't be responding any further, and I hope that you do take my advice and focus on fewer articles and bring up Spoony and other questionable sources on the page that I linked to. As it stands, the sources make it impossible for this article to become a Good article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'm not even standing for Spoony all that much. He got kicked out from TGWG for literally going crazy, or so they say. What are "other questionable sources" here allegedly unqualified to rate boobs, and most importantely - why? --Niemti (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
...okay. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Attempted copyedit

At Gabriel Yuji's request (on the GOCE requests page), I tried to copyedit the article; however, Niemti caused an edit conflict by editing the entire article (instead of in sections, the preferred practice) and I was unable to continue. Miniapolis 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

From Appearances --> In other media; removed unreliable source per first GA review:

SpoonyOne called this film's Mai "basically a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the King of Fighters movie" as "they got every single aspect of this character, except of the fact that she is a woman I guess, completely and utterly wrong."[1]

References

  1. ^ SpoonyOne, King of Fighters, That Guy With The Glasses, August 30, 2011.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mai Shiranui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Mai Shiranui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mai Shiranui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mai Shiranui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mai_Shiranui/Archive_1&oldid=1004877128"