Talk:List of Ranma ½ chapters

Two Japanese release dates
Why are there two Japanese release dates for each volume? Also, is there a reason why some characters in the Japanese chapter titles are linked (such as 女 in chapter 8's) and some romanji are crossed out (such as "hito" in chapter 8's)? Xfansd (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources differ on the dates so two dates were used. The romanizations need to be cleaned up as they come from the Rumic World web site. If you have the manga or otherwise can do this please feel free to do so. – Allen4names 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Amazon.com cites
A combination of factors led me to remove the Amazon cites including... Thus whenever a  or   parameter (pair) is replaced with an ISBN (thus corrupting the citation) there is a plausible reason for the edit. I therefore regard Amazon.com as unusable as a reference regardless of it's WP:RS status. – Allen4names (contributions) 08:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) use for verification of the content of books
 * 2) the Assume good faith guideline
 * 3) my own mistakes in using a advocating the use of   parameter in Citation templates.


 * You removed the amazon cites but left them bare, if you dislike amazon so much then replace the sources with Viz media or get rid of them completely. The Cite web template requires there be a website address present or it is automatically marked as "Pages using web citations with no URL " and is added to pages needing cleanup. See: articles needing page number citations, and Template: Cite Web - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fixed the one Amazon.com cite that I left by mistake but that does not fix the basic problem. Unless you are willing to treat what I term AMAZONISABOOK (Cite web -&gt; Cite book, url -&gt; isbn, etc.) as vandalism there is little point in using that website as a source. BTW, I don't think that HTML comments get read much even by those who edit the source like I do much less those who use VE. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 22:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Exceeds template operation limit
This article currently exceeds the template parser function limit, and as such will not render properly. This is probably because of the large amount of templates and references in the article. Removing unnecessary references, splitting the article, and/or simplifying template structure could resolve this problem. Mamyles (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I copied the following from the page source code.

&lt;!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1244 Cached time: 20160314020926 Cache expiry: 2592000 Dynamic content: false CPU time usage: 3.125 seconds Real time usage: 3.222 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 51141/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1068134/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 462217/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 15/40 Expensive parser function count: 6/500 Lua time usage: 1.466/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 4.66 MB/50 MB Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0--&gt;

&lt;!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 2872.495     1 - -total 64.56% 1854.594    38 - Template:Graphic_novel_list 49.77% 1429.664   814 - Template:Lang 46.57% 1337.609   834 - Template:Category_handler 31.02% 891.096      1 - Template:Reflist 20.68% 593.956    130 - Template:Cite_web 6.18% 177.438   1628 - Template:ISO_639_name 3.24%  92.932     21 - Template:Cite_book 1.44%  41.244      1 - Template:Cleanup 1.43%  41.080      8 - Template:Citation_needed --&gt;

&lt;!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:34422490-0!*!0!!*!3!* and timestamp 20160314020923 and revision id 697462081 --&gt;
 * So… just where is the template expansion limit exceeded? – Allen4names (contributions) 02:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed the ping for this. The article is listed at Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls, which is populated automatically by MediaWiki software. Mamyles (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It may have been a bug as I find neither the category at the bottom of the page, nor the page listed in the category. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 06:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, it seems to be gone now. This suspected problem is resolved. Mamyles (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)