User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 6

Still Doll and Suna no Oshiro?
These articles are barely necessary, what do you think we should do with them?  moo cows rule (Talk to Moo) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirected both to the artist page. They fail WP:MUSIC. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Kanon wakeshima promo picture.jpg and all it's duplicates don't appear to have fair use tags. What should we do with them?  moo cows rule (Talk to Moo) 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its been tagged before, he keeps removing them. I've retagged, and tagged all of its duplicates, along with the dupes and most of the other images he's uploaded. I swear it looks like he's socking as well...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * : D We're going to my grandma's for hors d'oeuvres  moo cows rule (Talk to Moo) 02:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * XD It turns out the party was tomorrow... モー モー ?talk to moo 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Makeover fails
I was reading some thing on ICv2 about Santa Inoue's appearance on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition painting a whole mural on a boy's wall and Tokyopop contributing over 300 manga volumes. I'm hoping the "boy" was at least 16, because Santa Inoue is not a kid's mangaka and i'mza hoping that all those 300 manga were kid appropriate, becuase the chances are, they were not. I also doubt that Extreme Makeover knows anything about manga. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL...if not, it should be interesting when the episode airs :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that was back in 2004. : ) Here's the article at ICv2. I've been treying to look for at least the part of the episode with Santa in it on YouTube, but nothing. I guess i'll just wait and see when the episode comes on, because I really like that show. :-D –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh...I'd guess it probably was age appropriate, or the show wouldn't have aired :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you be a bit more specific. What was probobly age appropriate? Tokyo Tribes of Extreme Makeover? –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * XD Santa... And that's really his name... I WISH MY NAME WAS SANTA... ;D モー モー ?talk to moo 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The resulting mural. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, that was kid appropriate. If he sees Santa Inoue on his wall and probobly got his Explicit Stickered Tokyo Tribes, no dought, he's going to get into his stuff. Plus, what about the 300 manga volumes Tokyopop gave him? : P –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably all age appropriate. TP wouldn't risk giving him something rated M or the like if he's a kid. They have a huge enough library...probably a bunch of old out of print stuff :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He's probobly older because how would they know about Santa Inoue? They probobly looked in his collection. The wierd thing is they reffered to him as "a boy", which normally means like 6 or younger. If he was 6 years old and he had Tokyo Tribes, then he must have some pretty stupid parents. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, the media refers to any male child under 16 as a boy. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ROFLOL. And thanks, totally forgot to move over my most recent ones to my accomplishments page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Blood: The Last Vampire
See 5 Centimeters Per Second. It uses "5" in the Japanese title (秒速５センチメートル) but the "5" is pronounced "Go" (the Japanese word for 5). Tons of other examples but I can't think of any others... D: モー モー ?talk to moo 05:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither a GA nor FA level article, not even B. I meant please point to an actual policy or guideline saying to write obviously roman letters in Japanese when the Japanese itself has 2000. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no policy on something as insignificant as that. The romaji section provides the reading in Latin characters to the Kanji/Japanese title. If the Japanese title uses "ブラッド ザ・ラストヴァンパイア２０００" then the romaji title is "Buraddo Za Rasuto Vanpaia Nisen". You can leave it as "...2000" but the pronunciation is "Nisen" in Japanese. モー モー ?talk to moo 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but its still written as 2000 :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DDDD: This is hard. I'm trying to write out the lyrics to Still Alive in Japanese and it's really hard D: モー モー ?talk to moo 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean it's hard because Hatsune Miku speaks really weird Japanese... モー モー ?talk to moo 05:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've had to use the Radical lookup extensively... モー モー ?talk to moo 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to write them out? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like the game, and I like the song. + I don't have anything else to do XD モー モー ?talk to moo 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

XD "The "Holy snap, I've Got a Lot of Barnstars and Jump Guru doesn't even know why he gave you a similar barnstar like this one to you back when you only had like 10 barnstars and the reason he's giving you this very special barnstar is becuase you have exactly 30 which is three 10's instead of one barnstar" Barnstar" モー モー ?talk to moo 06:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Arts & Sciences
I did not create College of Arts and Sciences (Bukidnon State University). I created a redirect which evidently was later hijacked. -choster (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah...Twinkle probably got confused. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I set up College of Arts and Sciences again. -choster (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Author article
I was thinking on making an article for Shiori Teshirogi. What requirements does the author need to have for the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He would need to meet WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. With only three works, I'd say he doesn't likely meet that requirement unless he's had some significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging
Hello, fellow upload log watcher! I noticed you often use both the nsd and nld tags on an image. There is alao a tag, nsnld, which addresses both concerns at the same time. The message is a bit more compact, and I believe it categorizes the image into both cleanup categories at once. Thought you might be interested. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm using User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to do my tagging...it would be good if it could switch to using that :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Vampire Knight episodes
I'll probably finish copy-editing sometime tomorrow (or maybe even tonight if I get a second wind. Too much melodrama to crank through :D). When I finish, can I nominate it for FLC and name you as a co-nom? — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, though I didn't do much beyond formatting and adding a lead (and get annoyed that working on it totally spoiled the anime and manga for me LOL) :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, having the most edits to a page (71) typically means your a major contributor. And IMO, they fucked up the ending in the anime. The manga version was way better. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to hear (on the ending)...hopefully I can avoid spoilers to it ;) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

University of South Carolina Upstate College of Arts and Sciences
Wouldn't it make more sense to just merge and redirect it to University of South Carolina Upstate? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. Its not a likely search term and doesn't appear to have any mergeable data. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Link for the info.
What I put there is true information. Here is the link: http://www.yugiohfans.co.uk/characters.html. Check AKi's profile there. Thanks. Beejay1234 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not a reliable source at all, so the information is completely invalid. As already suspected, that is nothing more than a fansite. Information from such sites are not usable here at all and, as you've already been told multiple times, that information is not considered "true" by Wikipedia standards. If you continue to try readding it, you will be reported and likely find yourself blocked. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes
User:Moon-sunrise recently moved List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, by copy-and-paste. Don't we need an admin to merge the old history into the new history?  moo cows rule talk to moo 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Already done, but yet, an admin had to fix it. I've left her a warning. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

huh? You can't speedy delete these, right?
Check out the latest edits to User:Lightningleakless and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Disney-Pixar_Cars_Die-Cast_Line SpikeJones (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How odd...user pages can be speedied if they are attack pages, but usually MfD is the method to go through. The talk page of the AfD is fine since it generally shouldn't exist. Admin should have fun with those :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellsing (disambiguation)
I still think there's no reason to keep this dab. Maybe all of the Hellsing anime redirects would have been better off targeting Hellsing (TV series). What should be imposed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. At this point the page could (and probably should) either be deleted or redirected to Hellsing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest tagging it with db-disambig. And the redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For now, yes, if its about the anime it should redirect there. The discussion is back and forth on merging it to the main, so currently no apparent consensus. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged it. Shall I switch the anime redirect links over to Hellsing (TV series) or did you have something else in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it, I've already closed the merge discussion. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There should definitely be another merge discussion soon. Were WP:ANIME and WP:TELEVISION even aware of that one? I don't remember ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the anime project was, don't remember. TV doesn't generally get notified of such discussions since it has nothing to do with the project. :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I assumed they would've been notified too since the disambiguator says '(TV series)'. BTW, did you happen to catch this? A real rule would settle that ongoing dispute. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah...I think the disambiguate is TV just to differentiate it from the OVA, following the example in the MoS, since it has multiple anime forms. And yes, I saw...an RfC might be better to open it to a fuller list of editors, but I suspect people will just say "nah, let people use reflist if they want cause references aren't really important and should be hidden anyway." And they wonder why Wikipedia's reliability is questioned when the references are treated like an annoyance rather than a critical part of the article...-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the real problem is (the pipes in cite web might give the tag trouble though, you would have to test it first). As for a discussion page, I think just about the closest you'll get is mw:Help talk:Magic words. 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Naruto characters
Up in the air. I think someone was collecting reception information, and we could have a reasonably decent section on it. Only reason that it's there is WP:SIZE issues, and I think it could pass FLC when cleaned up and reception added. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrigthy :) Oh, BTW, I finally finished the last character section for List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. It still needs a peer review and copy-edit, but do you think the lead and sectioning is alright? I tried to base it off the Naruto one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Need to mention the conception/reception in the lead. And also, the character entries are way too long. Remember the job of the character list is not to regurgitate plot points; it's to give a general description of the character. The only plot points you should mention are those that result in a significant change for the character in personality or some other aspect. Even in the most plot-intensive series, I doubt you ever need to exceed two decent-sized paragraphs, three if absolutely necessary. Give List of Naruto characters a harder look, especially in the character entries, before you go for a peer review and copy-edit. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I'm not sure what else to cut on the character entries but will try. I tried to keep them brief, but the whole Aoyama = Blue Knight = Deep Blue makes for tricky dealing with those sections and Ichigo's, and needing to briefly summarize the stuff changed in Mew Mew Power. Thanks, will keep working on it :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More for Tokyo Mew Mew
Hi,

I know you are rather touchy about your preferred articles so i'm giving those informations to you and you handle them as it suits you.
 * Tokyo Mew Mew Opening Single released the 1 May 2002 under NEC Interchannel label (NECM-12030)
 * Ref 1 : http://anime.geocities.jp/st_nht/MewMew/mewmew_op_cds.html
 * Ref 2 : http://ranking.oricon.co.jp/free_contents/search/detail.asp?itemcd=475178&samecd=1
 * Ref 3 : http://music.goo.ne.jp/cd/CDDORID475178-1/index.html

I don't want one of the three FA article to have a single opening for critic.--KrebMarkt 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I knew it was out there, just didn't include it as we don't normally include singles releases in the series articles, leaving that for the artist pages. I can't tell from the second link though, did it place in Oricon? If so, that might be a good note for including it in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No unfortunately it did not chart or Oricon did not mention it, i would have gave you that one if i could ;)
 * My main concern was that the opening single was the first to be released fellowed by the ending single a month later. You can fix that issue with any reference i gave you.
 * Out of curiosity, i also check for the other albums and singles but i none of the references i found can give an added value to the article--KrebMarkt 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately with the series relative age and the apparent dislike most Japanese media sites seem to have for archiving, sources about the other media is somewhat scarce. Even though I know there is tons of character merchandise for this series as well, its another thing thats hard to reliably source. :( -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny that we are called evil when we ask people to put reliable sources for their goodies, they mustn't know how hard we are restraining ourself to put our own not sourced stuffs. I will probably focus on the albums & singles for Card Captor Sakura in February--KrebMarkt 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Goo and Geocities are not reliable sources, Oricon should be fine though. : ) –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Geocities is RS as additional reference mainly for the content of the album or single (It's translation) in fact combining one link from Oricon or CD's label with on from there can give a complete coverage.--KrebMarkt 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So so true. It is kind of frustrating at times, though I'm learning to just go with the flow. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters
I was wondering, how often do you try bold merges of character articles to the broader articles? Inane article rescue attempts are disrupting discussions by playing up these character and never expanding the broader articles with character detail. Seems like such rescue attempts are merely for posterity's sake and have zero regard for the balance of content. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally go on a case by case basis. In the anime/manga realm, where I am more confident the project will back such merges, I'm more inclined to be bolder. After having endured a ton of personal attacks from some people for doing bold merges, and the whole TTN thing, I now generally will tag, discuss, and merge in a month, especially for film stuff where the consensus seems less clear (some are kept and you get chided for even suggested it, others are all for getting rid of it) and TV where the project doesn't always offer the support needed to back an article clean up effort. If I feel there will be adequate and neutral discussion, a merge discussion is usually better, even if there is nothing to merge. But I will AfD if I suspect either the character is completely unnnotable and doesn't need a merge and it doesn't really seem to need a redirect either (especially on barely notable stuff), or where I feel a tag/merge will result in too much incivility from own-y primary editors. I completely agree with you on those "rescue attempts." 99% of the time, they just throw in a bunch of crappy sources, most of which don't even source anything that needs sourcing or that just has one line about the character. But as a lot of AfD reviewers don't go in-depth into the sources, just see they are there, the article is "kept" and the "rescuer" forgets it ever existed, leaving it no better off than it was before. Its annoying as all get out, did nothing to improve anything in any real sense, and yet they proudly proclaim "I saved it" and "I fixed it." *sigh* Ever notice most who do that have never even brought an article up to B class, much less GA, FA, or FL? But we're the bad guys...-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors late to the discussion do not adequately review the actual contributions of the rescue attempt. Remember Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna?  I merged them to Jurassic Park (franchise).  Their sections look pretty small relative to the whole article once the fat is trimmed, yeah?  Too many section headings were inserted in the kept revisions to give the appearance of an authentic layout ("Reception" of an island?  Really?) so the merges better address the balance of content for these topics.  Perhaps AFD is not the best way to go about it with such topics?  For film characters at least, maybe you could inquire members of WP:FILM about such merges and work on not just merging what little (if anything) exists and expanding with any other tidbits at the broader article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried in the past...results are mixed. Some days, lots of response, others, none (though Film is certainly better about it than the TV project :. Maybe the film project needs a clean up task force, similar to the one we did in anime/manga, for a more dedicated group of editors who will work on cleaning up articles tagged for issues, and responding to such discussions? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A task force may be overkill for such articles unless the scope is larger. The future films department is set up for that kind of clean-up since there are always new films.  I'm not sure just how many articles of fictional entities from films there are.  One goal that WP:FILM needs to pursue is to have guidelines for film-related articles other than individual films.  Film festivals, film series, film characters, etc... still waiting on the outcome of WP:FICT to shape that last item, since discussion is a carousel there.  I know that Girolamo has expressed interest in cleaning up film characters.  A workgroup is smaller than a task force, right?  One goal to have for sure is to build up detail on the other side of the fence (the broader article) to reflect that it is worth merging to and expanding from within.  For some reason, people are averse to the philosophy of building from within and expanding outward. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for the task force, I meant clean up in general :) Such as dealing with articles tagged for excessive plot, lack of references, needing clean up, etc. See WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force to get a better idea of what I was thinking about. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Tin Man
I'd ask that you remove the AfD for this list until after the AfD for the various character articles get merged into this (which I think you will agree is the likely outcome of the individual character AfDs if history is any guide here) Otherwise we end up with a large number of conflicting AfD results. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. If the characters close as merge, they can be merged to the main article just as easily (or at least the actual relevant ones). Also, currently all three are far more strongly supporting outright deletion, with only the creator saying merge. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, just as a note, they shouldn't only be merged to the article on the series, but also to the sections on modern adaptations in Dorthy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. The out of universe information, such as actress Zooey Deschanel expaining that she was not trying to imitate Judy Garland and the like would be excellent for improving these articles.  No one could make a valid case for the Dorothy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. articles being deleted because these are iconic characters with appearances in many notable movies and literature and as such the out of universe information I have only begun to add, can and should go to flesh in these articles about the characters in general, which would still mean a merge and redirect with edit history intact.  I would support that as a compromise.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're suggesting a double merge? The plot the Tin Man and the rest to the actual notable original character articles? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ma'am, I am. (I needed to start the day with a rhyme!)  The characters on which these are based have considerable notability and it is reasonable to believe that as authors continue to write about these characters they will continue to write about their reinventions and adaptations, meaning there is an academic interest in these particular characters as depicted in Tin Min, because they represent only the most recent depiction of arguably some of the most recent fictional characters from all of literature and cinematic history.  Because they are from a miniseries that appeared on a major cable network and portrayed by recognizable actors/acrtresses as well, there is an interest and relevance to the careers of these real people.  Thus, some of the information I have added could be used in the article on the miniseries, the articles on the characters in generally, and maybe even in the articles on the actors and actresses.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd need to check the history, but I could have sworn that was done when the series first started airing and people starting trying to create character articles...but Jupiter didn't retain any of those histories when he made new ones, he just started over again under new names so finding the originals may be difficult. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. To clarify what I am getting at, look at this unreferenced section at Cowardly_Lion.  I really think a good way to develop and reference that section would be to add the out of universe information from The Washington Post, which is clearly a mainstream press and not a fanzine opinion, from List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man that compares Raoul Trujillo's portrayal with Bert Lahr's performance.  This source appears to be entirely about this particular character with additional information comparing/contrasting with the other performance that could be useful; however, you have to pay for the article.  :(  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at sources for List of characters in Tin Man and have come to following conclusions: Now with the above said, List of characters in Tin Man can still serve a navigational purpose and there are a number of previews and reviews with general comments on the characters as a whole that could be used for development and reception sections, but if nothing else, the reinventions of Dorothy Gale, the Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion, Toto, the Wizard, Glinda, etc. are significant to cinematic and cultural history. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable characters that can and should be kept/merged in some capacity and possible locations due to availability of out of universe reliable secondary source citations:
 * List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man to Cowardly_Lion
 * List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man to Toto_(dog) (if you look here, you will see that we can even source the name of the dog as well as human actor who portrayed the character in Tin Man; because we can source the dog's "actor", too, a merge to the Toto (Oz) article wouldn't be too over the top)
 * List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man to Glinda
 * List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man to Wizard_(Oz)
 * Characters for which I have thus far been able to find any secondary sources:
 * Ahamo, Jeb Cain, Xora, General Lonot, General Zero, and General Zero.
 * I'm still not really seeing any notability for any of them, though merge is better than a keep. Most of the references you've been adding a purely reviews of the miniseries, not specific studies/commentary on the characters themselves. That, to me, speaks to merge and create a seriously awesome reception section in the main article instead of a few spit sized ones spread over articles that are still, primarily, plot. As a side note, named references are your friends :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have only scratched the surface of the results of Google News searches and again because these characters are versions of some of the unquestionably most notable fictional chracters as indicated above, there is clearly legitimate encyclopedic interest in them. I personally think the articles should be kept, because they can be sourced through reliable secondary sources that can allow for sections of the articles on development and reception; however, for the sake of compromising, I would be willing to allow for merges to both the main character and series articles.  My concern is that the information is not lost and if I was able to do what I have done thus far by just choosing a few of ther results from the pages of results that the searches bring up, it is fairly clear that further improvement is clearly possible and we now have a basis from which we can either merge and build up some other articles or even to expand these articles.  AnmaFinotera, just to be open and all, I am bit surprised here.  I tend to stay out of those anime ones you nominate as I don't know much about them, but here we're essentially discussing variations of Dorothy Gale and related characters that have incredibly high importance in literature and film.  Should the various incarnations or depictions of her and the other characters have separate articles, well, that's debatable, but certainly we should be able to agree that the main character article should exist with at least redirects of any individual portrayals to that article.  I of course realize that in some instances these fictional character articles for one off characters and the like are hard to defend and I have avoided commenting in many fictional character articles of the past few months for that reason, but in instances when there's information concerning characters that are relevant to a much broader lineage as in the case or elements of fiction (such as those Jurassic Park islands) that appear in a variety of media and are indeed mentioned in reliable secondary sources, we should be able to agree that they merit coverage in some manner.  If my sources were solely the "offical Tin Man magazine", okay, but consider how many made for Sci Fi channel movies do NOT get coverage in The New York Times and Washington Post.  This one has coverage in mainstream press, because it is a reimagining of one of the most well known works of fiction with A-List actors/actresses portraying them.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a bit long. :P I've looked at those references and thus far they are all minor notices and would not hold up under real scrutiny (i.e. FA level reviews). And sorry, but just because the film was covered by the NYT doesn't mean it is significant coverage of the characters either (and actually, many of them do when RHI ramps up the promotion as it usually does for all of its miniseries). Of those sources you added, almost all of them are just reviews with quickly interviews (common for promoting films and miniseries), and none were specific and extensively covering any one character. Dorothy Gale already has an article, every iteration of her character is not notable on its own, its notability depends on the original. I didn't say DG shouldn't be mentioned in the Dorothy Gale article. She should, and if she isn't, I'd check the article history to see who vandalized it because she was added back when Tin Man started as part of its initial article creation. However, the specific character DG is not independently notable, not apart from Dorothy and not apart from the film itself. Specific and properly sourced information within the main articles is appropriate and relevant, not a single article for each. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case we should close the AfDs and discuss how and where best to merge on the articles' talke pages. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I still think they should be deleted, since GFDL doesn't apply after the fact. And no reason to close them now. Even if the end result is merge, its still a valid discussion (and, quite honestly, either way I'd rather have something more "official" in case this same editor decides to pull this again. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't think of any reason to delete them. We're a paperless encyclopedia, they're clearly relevant to a good deal of people, discussed out of universe in multiple reliable and mainstream sources, unquestionably mergeable at worst, certainly legitimate search terms to everyone who created and worked on these articles, etc.  Now some of those manga articles you nominate and comment in that you don't see me commenting in I don't do so, because I can't do anything to improve them.  Here, however, we are discussing characters portrayed by notable actors and actresses such as Richard Dreyfuss and Zooey Deschanel who are not merely reviewed in some genre specific source (SciFi has many miniseries and movies that don't get national media coverage) that are likely to be discussed long into the future due to their being new takes on some of the most recognizable characters from literature and cinema.  Somehow this information is salvageable and this is one instance where our credibility is on the line.  People might mock us for covering inidvidual Pokemons or something, okay, but literary and film scholars, i.e. not just fans, will have a hard time taking us seriously if we start dismissing the mainstream media and diminishing our coverage of reinventions of strikingly notable characters.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but they are still not notable and I do not see the handful of sources added (which are all the same sources on each article) as showing they are notable enough to have their own articles, at all. They should be covered, as appropriate, in the main miniseries article and, as sourcable, in the original character articles, the way they used to be. And hey, we deserve mocking for having individual Pokemon articles too, when only one or two are actually real-world notable per significant coverage in reliable third party sources that extensively discuss them in detail. This is the second time you noted anime/manga, and you may notice that I take the same stances there than I do here with film articles. Only truly notable characters should have individual articles. Tin Man was a great miniseries (loved it), but four or five sources covering the miniseries itself does not make every character notable nor does it really show its relevant to a "good deal of people"...how many people are talking about it or the characters now?. Any newer film books including it in its discussion? Any one still talking about those characters? Notice that the article itself has little editing, which while not really a great guideline, also doesn't show that people are still remembering and heavily interested in teh film. Of course reviews came out when it was released, it does happen with many films. See Grizzly Rage, undeniable a wonderfully horrible B-movie that aired on Sci-Fi. Despite that, it still had enough reviews that it is a GA level article. Would you actually say those handful of sources made each of its four characters notable enough for an article or a list? Films, as a whole, rarely warrant a character list at all, including miniseries films, much less individual character articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are notable by any reasonable standard and even if you don't see that, but do at least agree they can and should be covered in other articles then that is still a call for merging and redirecting, but not deletion. To be honest, there's no real reason why we shouldn't cover just about everything that can be verified in reliable sources and that some of our editors and readers view worthwhile.  The whole notability thing is really anti-wikipedic as it boils down to "I like it/I don't like it", just as a handful of editors in some five day AfD who feel otherwise doesn't truly reflect the opinions of our community when many times that number have worked on or come here to read these articles.  Keeping this content expands our coverage of a non-hoax topic that is verified in reliable sources.  Deleting it accomplishes nothing worthwhile.  It doesn't make the people interested in this topic suddenly want to work on other articles.  Not all articles must be GA or FA level to merit inclusion here.  In any event, in December 2008 and January 2009, people are indeed still talking about it.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing anti-wikipedic about it. Wikipedia is not a fiction fansite, its an encyclopedia. And no, notability does not boil down to "I like it" or "I don't" it boils down to what is actually notable by reasonable standards of SIGNIFICANT coverage (not one source being stretched paper thin to call it good enough). And yes, it does reflect the opinions of the community. If you don't vote, you can't complain about elected officials with any real authority. If you don't voice your opinions in the discussions, same applies. Just because it isn't a hoax topic doesn't make it worth inclusion. And people are not talking about it. People mentioning it in passing as "the last miniseries aired" or "he also starred in" is not talking about it. All significant mentions are from when it was released. Nothing since. You know what I find sad? People will sit here and do all this work and research and hotly defend such unnotable characters, yet can't bother with the actual notable work, the miniseries itself. Which might explain why the article doesn't even mention its Emmy nominations. That, to me, is far more sadder and anti-wikipedic than wanting to clean out the cruft. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well WP:ITSCRUFT is always an "I don't like it". Significant coverage is what we have here, i.e. the characters being mentioned out of universe across dozens of sources.  Seriously how many characters from mini-series are cited in The New York Times with quotations from actors and comparisons to other versions of those characters?  Just because I only selected a few of those sources does not reflect the actual Google News results, which is of course far more significant and extensive collectively.  People mentioning it at all in newspapers still this year is a sign of notability as of the countless miniseries in existence, not all will even get that.  It is anti-wikipedic, because Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia.  A paperless encyclopedia that boasts about having 2 million articles which anyone sees on the main page.  Wikipedia is something people are interested in and come to because it has such extensive coverage of topics that some may see as obscure or come up with their personal ideas of notability over.  Our claim to fame is because we have millions of articles on so many diverse topics.  No, we should not cover literally everthing and as such I have actually argued to delete by now more articles than I have seem some of those who have disagreed with me in various discussions argue to keep.  And I am trying to be more selective about which ones are worth defending anymore.  These ones are slaveable.  Plus, if we were merely a clone of Britannica, what would be the point?  Citing The New York Times and other mainstream newspapers is the exact opposite of a fansite.  We don't have to have dissertations on every single topic we covered.  If we get sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources from which we can write an article, that's good enough.  If it is at least sufficient for merges and redirects, then we do that.  But deletion in this case goes against PRESERVE, because it is not original research, it is thus far not redundant (not merged yet), not irrelevant (out of universe cited information is what we have), not patent nonsense, not copywright violations, not inaccurate, and goes without saying about not being unsourced claims about living people.  And on top of it, we have a Talk:Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries) that should have been revisited first just as I believe you opposed TTN nominating articles for deletion for which merge discussions existed (and no I do not think you are the same as TTN, so I do not mean that as any kind of slight).  If the main article needs improvement, well, it should be improved as well, but it is not an indication that the sub-articles should just be abandoned.  BOTH should be improved.  I would be glad to help improve the main article, but it requires such an inordinate amount of time having to defend some articles from which we might draw information to improve the main article or for which we need as spinouts for future improvements as well.  Being a collection of deletion discussions hardly makes us a better encyclopedia (I don't see how we benefit from keeping an AfD discussion public rather than an article that at least a segment of our community believes worthwhile that we know is not nonsense as AfD discussions are useful to who?).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's too long and I barely read it. In short, no, they aren't salvageable. They will never be nothing but a bunch of plot with a handful of lines of real world info. And no, sticking in token citations does not make us better than a fansite when people are only keeping these articles on some thinly claimed "notability". And no, it doesn't go against preserve, but that's something you and will probably never agree on (though I am curious as to how you would make the same argument with the 10th Kingdom character articles which ARE copyright violations and inaccurate). And I opposed TTN nominating articles for deletion for which there was already a consensus to merge (not just because a merge discussion existed), so it was a waste of time all the way around. The issue was already dealt with, he just decided I was taking "too long" to do the merges because I left the discussion up for a month. AfD discussions aren't "public" in terms of being out there. People have to know where to find them, and there is no valid reason not to have them available, though, as it helps people understand why some content just doesn't belong here and why it was removed if the issue comes up later. And true, every article doesn't have to BE GA/FA, but it if can not be reasonably be seen as being capable of being brought there, it should be questioned as to why it exists at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are salvageable, which is why the consensus in the discussions is clearly moving in that direction. One who argued to delete, now says to merge. One who argued to merge, now says to keep. I have greater hope in these articles futures, but neither you nor I are seers and as such cannot know how they will be improved further in the future. Yet, characters that are adapted from Baum have a reasonably good chance of being discussed in further books and articles about The Wizard of Oz and its various adaptations. If the 10th Kingdom articles are copywright violations or inaccurate, then they should be rewritten and improved accordingly. Looking at the merge discussion on the series talk page for the Tin Man articles there actually does appear to be a consensus to merge, so the nominations does seem to be going against that consensus or in place of it and by and large the consensus in these discussions is shaping out to be either a keep, merge, or no consensus. By the way, I was about to add about it being nominated for an Emmy, but that seems to already be mentioned at Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries). I checked Academic Search Complete and came across Fees, Jarre, "Miniseries Have Major Impact," Television Week; 8/11/2008, Vol. 27 Issue 21, p26-26, 1p, 5 color which also discusses it being nominated for an emmy only to see the article already reference as much. Ah well. :) (I wish we could make actual emoticons by the way...) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its now mentioned because I just added it :-P, along with some production info long left neglected (I really need to get the special edition DVD which has the making off stuff that aired when the miniseries aired). I'd be curious as to what that whole article states because according to a source I just added, Sci Fi is now one of the only American channels that still gives that kind of support to miniseries, which would be a nice note for the channels otherwise blah page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote without it being a copy vio (I found it on a search engine that I have to log on for), but here's part of it: "This time around, HBO's historical drama John Adams tops Emmy's list with 23 nominations, including miniseries. Cranford, a story set in 1840s England, also is nominated in the miniseries category, along with A&E's retelling of the biological thriller The Andromeda Strain and Sci Fi's Tin Man, a reworking of Frank Baum's 1939 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that draws a line of demarcation between the fantasy of the old Oz and the darker, somewhat psychedelic world of the new....Tin Man (Sci Fi, RHI Entertainment) stars Zooey Deschanel as DG (Dorothy Gale), who goes from fighting boredom to battling flying monkeys, aided by the half-brained Glitch; Raw, who only wants a little courage; and Cain, a former cop also known as a Tin Man. The series features Richard Dreyfuss as Mystic Man, the drug-addled wizard, and Kathleen Robertson as Azkadelia, an evil sorceress who holds a big secret about DG's past and future." Academic Search Complete and J-Stor frequently get hits that Google News and Google Scholar don't get I have found.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So basically the same as the other ones (23 nominations! Wow...never even watched that one LOL). Agreed on ASC. I use it and some others through A&M for a lot of stuff, especially when working on company articles and anything from more than 5 years ago since so many papers want to charge to read their online versions. *grumble* Gonna see if Tin Man actually won any awards (and BTW, none of its Emmy noms were for the characters/acting ~ducks~). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched the first few episodes of John Adams, but never got around to finishing it before it was off of HBO on demand. In any event see also this interview.  It is five pages long and the actress discusses her role and her take on the role, how she prepared, etc. at some length which could be added to the production section.  Pretty bold claim here.  I can go through those again tomorrow, but I need to watch the replay of The Soup in three minutes.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay...gotta find a way to work "as a Straw Man 2.0 whose brain was vacuumed out of his zippered head" into the article LOL Very bold headline indeed. The Teen interview isn't actually that long if you check the whole version...I hate it when sites do that...besides making it annoying to cite, its annoying to read :-P For now will add the link to the article as I want to play some Odin Sphere before sleeping.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have made some additional improvements to the DG article using these sources. By the way, in other news, you can actually hold a version of The Black Pearl in the real world.  :)  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd butt in. I'm interested in improving the main Tin Man article, and I believe I was the one who initiated the various merge discussions and cleaned a lot of excess plot & OR out of the character articles. This really riled up Jupiter Optimus Maximus, who'd created those articles (and who frequently fills character articles with his own POV and OR), so I let him have the character list article as a playground (read: dumping ground) while I spent time cleaning up the main article. But my interests eventually shifted to other things and the article and merge discussions kind of got forgotten. The AfDs have re-kindled my interest in working on the series article, so I'm going to put more time and effort into that tomorrow. I've got the special edition DVD, so I'll go through the featurettes and add what I can. I'll also try to expand the cast and reception sections using the source material that A Nobody has brought to the table. When all is said and done I think we have the potential to get the series article up to GA (or at the very least B) and to delete/redirect the character articles back to the main one.

As for adding bits about the Tin Man character adaptations to the articles about the Baum characters, I'll leave that to you both but I feel that it will be able to be done using material from the Tin Man article once it has been significantly improved. I'm with AnmaFinotera in the opinion that these individual characters (DG, Cain, Glitch) do not have enough significant coverage of the characters beyond the context of the miniseries itself that independent articles are justified. The source material is certainly fantastic for improving the main article, but worrying about spinout character articles while the main article is in dire need of improvement is seriously putting the cart before the horse. WP:SS advises us, and I wholeheartedly agree, to develop the main article first and then split out only those topics that seem worthy of standing on their own. The gun was severely jumped in splitting out the character articles at an early stage, and it's been an uphill battle ever since to get them cleaned up and the worthwhile info brought back into the main article (I fell compelled to note that, at the time of the AfD nominations, there was no worthwhile info to bring over into the main article). Funny how that works sometimes. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool on the DVD! I keep meaning to get it but then Christmas happened :-) Glad you've gotten reinterested in the article. Unfortunately Jupiter Optimus Maximus did the same mess with 10th Kingdom, but at the time I just got fed up and walked away and he, of course, restored the entire thing back to his preferred trashy, personal summary state. *sigh* You might find this interesting, though, regarding him. After seeing what he did at 10th Kingdom, I got curious...because it was quite similar to what someone else had tried. Meanwhile, I've gone ahead and fixed the lead and hopefully fixed the wording on that sentence I moved to the production section so it flows better? Category 6: Day of Destruction is a miniseries article I have taken to GA, if you'd like to take a peak for potential guideance. My main concern with Tin Man is the inclusion of a character section which is generally no something film articles should have unless it has more a real-world context and is in prose, though with the sources found now, perhaps it can be reshaped into that. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On another note I saw somewhere about rescuing articles, but not making GA articles. In my 30,000 or so edits, I have contributed to good and featured articles, however, on this volunteer site I most enjoy rescuing articles and making editors feel welcomed by giving people welcome messages or listing nice people on my userpage (and sometimes I fight vandalism or warn people for incivility as I did someone who said mean things on IllaZilla's talk page recently or back before I had my username changed when I helped checkuser some socks that were harassing AnmaFinotera).  If I have any role in article writing, I see myself as a middle phase, i.e. others create articles, I help to improve them sufficiently to justify their inclusion, and then the better writers than I fine tune them to bring them to GA or FA status.  All phases are relevant, especially on a volunteer site and we shouldn't disparage any one phase.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not saying you have to "make" GA articles, but if the article could NEVER be a GA nor an FA. And I do appreciate that while we frequently disagree, you avoid the incivility others often descend to and have been nice enough to help out when someone has vandalized my pages before. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember AnmaFinotera, they aren't "your" articles. : ) –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was referring to my user pages and talk pages not articles I work on. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, you were. *blah* My bad. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on the casting section in Tin Man: I'm thinking of something like this from another article I brought to GA. Plenty of sourced real-world content there, and it's what I'd like the section in Tin Man to eventually look like. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that similar to the Alien casting section, we should still be able to merge the DG and certain other characters to the articles on say Dorothy Gale and such, just as we still have a separate article on Ellen Ripley, but not articles on separate portrayals of Ellen Ripley, which by the way could and should be better referenced as she gets numerous Google scholar and Google Books hits, i.e. more than just reviews, that discuss her at some depth. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If merged, DG should be redirect to Tin Man because it is the work her name is used in and the work the character is specific too. However, links to Dorothy Gale should certainly be added, and the Gale article should include information on DG as both a portrayal and a fictional ancestor. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where it is redirected to, probably doesn't matter, I just want to be sure that we also bring up the Dorothy Gale character article as she is of high significance to literature/cinema and Deschanel's version of her is relevant to that lineage. Hey, as frustrated as I may be seeing these Baum characters nominated for deletion, I actually see characters from a Charles Dickens book that have appeared in at least TEN (10!!) TV and cinematic adaptations and for which I am able to find not just reviews, but full length scholarly articles focused specifically and entirely on these particular characters, not to mention clear evidence of school assignments concerning these characters.  When we start trying to delete articles concerning characters people actually study in school and for which they are the subject of journal articles, we are losing sight of what an encyclopedia/reference guide is.  Almost as disconcerting as when I saw someone redirect rather than improve the article on the main character in War and Peace for whom full length dissertations have been devoted, scholars have called the "greatest literary figure of all time", etc.  I have way too many articles to rescue at once!! :0  (not sure how to make an exhuasted face...)  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More Boku no Pico manga D:
There's one called "Hareta Hi no Pico (晴れた日のぴこ), based off the first OVA, published in Hanaota, February 2007 (published before Ame no Hi no Pico to Chico). The second one (published after Ame no Hi no Pico to Chico), called "Toppatsu aho 4 Koma Gekijō Sugoi yo Tamo-cchan" (突発あほ4コマ劇場 すごいよタモっちゃん), but not much is specified about this one. I'd search google for stuff about both those.  moo cows rule talk to moo 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Very suspicious
Does this strike you as familiar? I swear, just by looking at the contributions, this has to be the same guy ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were, the checkuser probably would have indicated as much as from past experiences with requests, they tend to indicate when other socks were being used. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed...someone to watch, though, since he's running around making fake articles for his own fictional creations. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He looks like a sock. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Chōjū-giga‎ at B-class
I got Chōjū-giga‎ up to a B-class. It's my second article to get to a B! :-D What do you think? –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats :) Are you going to take it to PR and try for a GA? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I haven't thought about PR and GA yet. The see also section is for linking to related topics, should it be removed? :P –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, this Bueller 007 guy has some real nerve. He replaced all this valuable stuff in the lead with all of his unsourced crap that's not mentioned in the article. I don't get it, he gets all these awards while he just makes these wimpy stubs. >_< –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How did Fundamental Law of Education (an article written by Bueller 007) get B-Class???? It has no references (unless you count "Much of the content of this article was translated from the equivalent Japanese-language article, accessed on June 26, 2006. Some revisions were made on March 15, 2007, equally translated from the equivalent Japanese-language article." as a reference) and has way too many personal opinions and original research in it. Other than it being a law, it gives no notability.  moo cows rule talk to moo 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * People will regularly give an article a B just because they wrote it. Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Told ya'. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Look who did it too. See revision of talk page. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep...ego rating rather than reality. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly review an article?
Hello we've spoken, albeit briefly, before and you seemed a very intelligent and decent individual, skills which I would appreciate very much in reviewing an article of mine, namely: Ten Technologies to Save the Planet. I'm steaming ahead with it, I'm also starting to lack direction and maintain a sense of what is needed and is utter rubbish. It might be slightly too early, but I was wondering if you could pour over the content for a moment and inform me of what you think (possibly grade it (I dislike grading myself and it feels arbitrary if not downright against Wiki policy)). Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would the biggest thing needed is an increased reception section, which is what most speaks to its notability. Right now, with only review, it fails WP:BK and could end up at WP:AFD or being prodded. I'd look at tighten up the overview to reduce the use of "This chapter" and instead just give an overall summary without a chapter by chapter breakdown. The lead needs a little expansion to better summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD. You may also want to add a section giving a summary of its release history (particularly if its been released in hardback/paperback, UK and US, etc), later editions (if any), etc. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that summary. The critical reception section is something I have tried to work on but there are few notable sources; what do you mean by 'with only review', is two not enough at this stage?

The chapter overview is something I was cautious about adding and I think you're right about cutting it down. I'll take a look at the lead article and see what can be done about the lead; it was something I identified as being in need of a revamp from the beginning. I can't say that there are enough releases to warrant a section on them, however it's definitely something I will consider as the article ages. Much appreciated as always AnmaFinotera. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem and glad to help. If there isn't enough on the releases to go in its own section, a short summary in the lead would be a valid exception to the usual guideline of not having sourced content there. Good luck with it either way :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hikaru sockpuppet
I found this user named Hikaru300 who vandalislised Bleach, who has a similar name to Hikaru1000 who vandalised the Weekly Jump page. However, 1000's contributions were once actually supportive, but when he started vandalising Jump he stopped, in 300 it just seems like he went crazy. I think it's debatable. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How odd...maybe someone high-jacked his account or someone ticked him off. There was a fairly long pause between his last okay edit and his vandalism. If the 300 keeps vandalizing, I'd send to AI/V. I think it may have been too long since 1000 edited for a checkuser to do any good. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You see, what happened was, I reverted the edits (adding a picture) he did to Weekly Jump, and then he just got really ticked off and then started trying to take revenge on me by changing the names on the list, and erasing all the pictures I put on. Then it just looks like he completely turned on Wikipedia and started vandalising when he made 300. Well, at least that's my theory. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep...unfortunately it happens sometimes. People come here thinking they can do what they want, misunderstanding "free encyclopedia" then when they find there are actual guidelines and policies in place, they throw temper tantrums. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that just by keeping your talkpage on my watchlist. Sorta like the guy who commented right under this coversation about keeping a non-notable, short lived, Weekly Shōnen Jump series. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
I have filed a Wikiquette alert at Wikiquette alerts over Kangarugh22 accusations of bad faith towards you. Hopefully, other editors will step in and help calm the situation. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been trying to hold in my temper (not an easy task for me, ya know ;-) ), but its getting quote annoying. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's getting annoying for me too, it's crowding my watchlist. : P –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, I'd have thought to AMG convo above would do that more ;) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP help
Well, I see that the checkuser page is not marked as historical and I am not really familiar with the new page. But in any event, please see: For, I believe obvious reasons, I suspect these are socks of each other and thus possibly vote stacking at Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko. If you agree, please help in filing a report or if in cases that seem obvious, what if anything should be done? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the new page is taking some getting used to. I went ahead filed an AIV since Emilio is actively vandalizing and that is some pretty obvious sockpuppetry. Hopefully the reviewing admin will block all three and not just the Emilio sock. If another appears, let me know and I'll go ahead and file a report so the IP can be found and blocked as well.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, only one was blocked so went ahead and filed the report. See Sockpuppet investigations/D50qhx. I'll keep the AfD on my watchlist in case anymore appear. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely obvious that they are sockpuppets. -_- They didn't even try, on the deletion page he or she completely gave it away. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs*
"If you have time... just do it" would have to be worst slogan ever. Imagine if Nike used it how different things would be... Giggy (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You said "You have the time to find sources and vote on the afd, but not time to copy paste the URL into the article and put tags around it? Yeah right." Guess what? That's all the "speed rescuers" do now, which doesn't actually improve the article. It just sticks a token source or two on its so they can claim "now its notable, you must keep" then after its over, they just leave it in the same shoddy shape. AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs)
 * Yeah, I, uggh, didn't encourage those "speed rescuers" (although I challenge you to say they make the articles worse). I just pointed out the silliness of making a loophole for the people you're trying to convince to change their behaviours. But oh well.
 * Confrontational tones are always welcome, by the way. Giggy (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* in the end...you really think they will read it or care? The main ones who seem to be reading are the ones who it annoys :P (and they do make articles worse because it gives a sliver of notability that rabid fans will hold on to like a starving dog to a bone to prevent any future merge discussions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree to some extent at least. Cynicism is fun :) Giggy (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, true true :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bari Haken and Shinya Suzuki
Per some of the comments at Articles for deletion/Bari Haken that resulted in the "no consensus" result, I've created the article about the author, Shinya Suzuki, and redirected Bari Haken to it. Even though you advocated deleting Bari Haken, I figured that you wouldn't have an issue with the merge to the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's fine with me :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Properties licensed by Funimation
You're keeping an eye on this one right? Some editor is insisting that Funimation is the licensor of Samurai Champloo, and misleadingly showed me this. I don't see any verification for this factoid. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't have it on my watchlist anymore. Interesting that he claimed his own edit as proof. ~shaking head~ -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Geneon stil own the license, but Funimation is distributing it now according to ANN. It's quite confusing that Geneons American office supposedly closed a year ago, but they still own licenses.Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like Funimation mostly is just distributing rather than taking over licenses, though I think they did also buy some of their licenses (to make it even more confusing). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense really, it's mostly "easy" work as the subbing, dubbing and possibly authoring is already done so they can do it amongst their own licensing. Saying that, they are supposed to be using Bandai's work for Love Hina after taking their license, but so far it's already a year late! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True...saves them money while leting them making it. I think all they are doing is reprinting the discs with their logos, and doing new packaging. I haven't picked up any of the series yet to see if they changed out the disc contents to include their logos/trailers, or if they did what Pioneer did when it became Geneon :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AnmaFinotera, have you seen the recent activity? Haven't the time to check, so I'm wondering if you can verify the credibility of this particular update. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Funi page is showing both on it on its A Go Go page. No idea if its a license or a distro though, page doesn't say. I still think the best thing would be to just get rid of all those silly lists. :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be for the best. Think you can drop those lists now? They only serve to confuse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember doing some, but they were reverted and no consensus seems available to act as guidance. Half the time such lists would be called useless and deleted or redirected, while the other half, even though its just a catalog listing, its called good. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, whatever you decide to do is OK with me. Perhaps there should be a mention of Funimation at the Samurai Champloo article. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should be. Check ANN to see if they have a news item on whether its a distro agreement or a license. If the former, just a note in the anime media section saying its distributed by Funi for Geneon. If license, update infobox accordingly and change prose to note was licensed by Geneon, now by Funi, blah blah. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for asking, but are you able to get to it? It just sounds like a lot to do and I'm afraid I don't quite have the time to learn the works. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disney again
You're the expert. :) is this Bambifan or is it unrelated? Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that be him. Those talk page edits and the articles he's doing are good clues, and that IP is definitely within one of his main ranges, the 68.220.x.xs -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Tan   &#124;   39  23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will keep that in mind. Next time I'll block him myself. I am getting my Disney vandals confused lately, too many IP's of skymac and bambifan lately. I also re discovered another Disney vandal again. See User:Youngcolton and notice his edit summaries. A year ago I blocked a whole bunch of socks and ip's from that editor. What is it with these Disney articles? (Hmm, I asked the same questions already a few times...:) Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wish I knew. I suspect their lack of quality may be part of it...I've tried several times to get some Film project members to adopt and clean those up cause Disney films are, for the most part, the easiest to source and bring up to GA/FA, but no one wants to deal with the constant vandalism. And as long as there are no regular editors, the vandalism will continue...vicious circle. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be moved?
I'm not sure how companies should be structured, but I think the page NAS (company) should be moved to Nihon Ad Systems Inc, since NAS is only it's abreviation. DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, how about this page too?. MÄR DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think this page should be deleted.NetNavi DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed on NAS and moved to Nihon Ad Systems (no Inc. generally), asking about MÄR at the project (my gut says yes, it should be Mär but want to confirm on that one. NetNavi should be merged or, if no appropriate merge target, deleted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * MÄR is only part of the title as I understand it, the full title is MÄR: Märchen Awakens Romance. Unless that second part is just a subtitle. *shrugs* 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I was thinking too...I posted in the project cause it seems to be all over the place :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, is there a tool that will speed up the process of creating an episode page, since the episode pages for MegaMan NT Warrior are a mess, and they stopped dubbing them.DragonZero (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not really. I've used Dreamweaver to help me convert a list in a spreadsheet to the proper code, but still have to make the list first and get it going. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've personally tried using Excel (copy+ paste a ANN page to a sheet, then use a formula to autofill)to do it but it's been a long time since I used excel for any real purpose so I didn't have much luck. I might try it with Apple's Numbers actually Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tsubasa characters
just undid the merge/redirect of Yūko Ichihara and created Clone Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle). Thoughts? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I say restore the merge (pretty sure it had consensus - and already did this one for now) and undo the split out of the clone article as it is certainly not notable. If he protests, guess we need a second full blown discussion with project backing and get all of them merged in anyway. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought, but I only caught this because the navbox is on my watchlist and he added links. I personally have little interest arguing over character articles (or doing much of anything with them at all), and you've dealt with Tsubasa/xxxHolic character articles yourself, which is why I asked you (long excuse for: I'm lazy =) ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, my only Tsubasa/xxxHolic stuff is minor, mostly keeping them out of the CCS articles :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball characters
Do the links here seem totally unreliable to you? The editor even linked to Krillin in an odd way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes...it seems like they may have pulled content from the old merged articles or something. I've reverted as being excessive plot detail (way too much). Is there a similar page on the DB wikia? Might have copied from there or something. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, I haven't been to the DB wikia in about a year. But yes, the information was pure bunk. The article is already unsourced enough and those editors were making it worse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the article's talk page, which I referenced in my edit summary when I restored the content. I re-added the content with the tags temporarily so I could look for reliable sources. If I am unable to find sources, I will remove the content. Please use the talk page for discussing the article rather than edit warring. Useight (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The other editor is a admin, and if anyone knows how to edit thing it would be him. Also i did not use anything from the dragonball wiki, and I was in the process of obtaining a creditable source. Yami (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is that I pulled nothing from a merge article, and I didn't link to krillin's destructo disc in a weird way. If you understood wikipedia more, you'd know how to link right to the target section. Yami (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Being an admin does not necessarily mean he knows better how to edit a specific topic (no offense meant to Useight, I'm saying in general). I've seen some admins who are outright horrible at article writing, plottiness, etc. They are still human you know and no admin is an expert in writing in every particular topic area. And yes, you did link to it in a weird way. You used an external link instead of a proper wiki link, so perhaps YOU are the one who needs to understand Wikipedia more. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I am not omniscient. I have never read the DBZ manga nor seen its anime. I'm more of a Pokémon guy myself. And, yes, Yami did link with improper syntax. But that's just a reason to fix the syntax, not remove it outright. However, the other reasons you offer are valid reasons to remove content. In theory, all unsourced content should be removed. Anyway, I'll be working on the resolution I have mentioned below. Useight (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolution
Here's the simplest way for us to resolve this. I'm going to take the content that is currently being challenged and I will put it in User:Useight/Sandbox. Yami and I will look for sources and add them there, rather than on the article itself. If and/or after we find reliable sources, we will move the content back to List of Dragon Ball characters. If a concern remains regarding it being "too much plot detail", other unsourced content can be removed in its place, because there is plenty of unsourced content in that particular article. If this content turns out to be unsourceable, it will not be re-added to the article and my sandbox will be blanked. Does this resolution sound acceptable to all parties involved? Useight (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go with it. Yami (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is still excessive and minor plot details about that particular character (yes, the list suffers from it on the whole as well but that's no reason to continue the trend). Just because it can be sourced to the plot doesn't mean it belongs there. See WP:WAF and take a look at higher quality character lists for anime/manga articles, such as List of Naruto characters which is a featured list. For example: "It should be noted that at some point she has acquired the ability to perform Krillin's Destructo Disc which she uses against Goten and Trunks disguised as Might Mask." - a, "it should be noted" is not anything that belongs there at all, and b, no, it does not need to be noted. Its a minor note that is not necessary for anyone to understand the series. Nor is it necessary to repeat everything in each of the Androids section. Giru's production number is another trivial point that isn't necessary. In any peer review or copy edit, that stuff would be stripped out quick fast and in a hurry. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I know absolutely nothing about the series, are we in agreeance that this information is minor? Or is it also claimed by at least one party that this information is vital? Useight (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cringe at the very sight of the phrase "it should be noted" (or some variant thereof), as it almost always means that whatever follows is not noteworthy. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The part about 16 being able to sense power levels unlike the others is vital. That's how they tracked their way to the Z-warriors.


 * The part about the android seen in trunk's recollection crushing gero looking like 16 can be removed.


 * 18 learning the destructo disc is vital in its own way as well. The androids don't have Ki like the others, so performing a attack like that is notable. especially since she uses it to demask mighty mask and in the games its a move of her's.


 * Also you should be less aggressive in your arguments. "it should be noted" was just something i put down, it sounded encyclopedic.


 * and what does Giru have to do with anything on this topic?


 * Yami (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the info on 16's bomb being removed should also be mentioned. Yami (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not notable to anyone but perhaps a fan of the series, but not for giving non-fans a general understanding of the series. And "it should be noted" doesn't sound encyclopedic, that was my point. And the note on Giru was among the stuff I reverted. Useight, thus far only one person, Yami who has already noted to you that he is a fan of the series and editing as such, has claimed any of this is necessary info. Meanwhile, we now have two experienced anime/manga editors saying it isn't (one who has seen the series, one who has not). Perhaps a post to the project for further input would be appropriate, or maybe as User:Sephiroth BCR for an additional view, as he is well versed in FL criteria and what is, and is not, appropriate level of detail in character lists. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a possible idea, but it feels to me like canvassing or forum shopping or something. I'd prefer something on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

is the destructo disc thing the only thing you have concerns about? because the 16 bomb and power level sensing is important.

If you're so worried that this list is to let non-fans understand the characters, then 16 attempt at a suicide bomb on Cell should be mentioned. His ability to sense power levels unlike the other two should also be added.

I can see not templating the same info into all three, and i can see the destructo disc might not go well, but the 16 info is vital to the character.

a soruce for 16's bomb being removed has been found and is in Useight's sandbox. I also have a reference that can be used to cite his power level sensing. Yami (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, NONE of it is notable nor necessary to mention. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

side note Focus on the article not the editor please AnmaFinotera. Just because I'm a fan doesn't mean I lack the qualifications to edit a article based on what I am a fan of. Yami (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then please act more neutrally and read the noted guidelines and argue based on those, not just your knowledge of the series. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Android #16
Android #16 was built with the ability to sense power levels unlike #17 and #18, and assists the other androids in finding the Z-warriors. While trying to protect #17 and #18 from Cell, he is greatly damaged, though Bulma and her father Dr. Breifs repair him. He then ignores his old orders to kill Goku, and helps in the fight against Cell. Like the other androids he had the ability to self destruct, but the device was removed during his repairs. This is made known only when #16 tried to self destruct and destroy Cell, which Cell retaliates by destroying most of #16. His head and consciousness survived, but later is destroyed by Cell, which pushes Son Gohan over the edge to Super Saiyan 2.

the citations have been added. I also cited the voice actors. does this please the other side? Yami (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See User:Useight/Sandbox for a copy of the proposed material with the included reflist. Useight (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Those are NOT reliable sources, period. If you can't site it to the series itself as something directly stated by characters, or to actual reliable sources, the information doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Back from Wikibreak
I'm back from an unannounced 1-month wikibreak. So there's two issues that I would deal with first:
 * 1) I read the B-class evaluation for Case Closed; it failed on coverage and WP:REF grounds. WP:REF is probably something that is easier to deal with, but what of coverage, you think, is lacking in that article?
 * 2) A lot of work is required on List of Lucky Star characters; I don't believe a generally plotless series need this length per character. On the other hand, there a WP:REF question related to editing this article: Would you consider official character sketches and the mangaka's afterword in the tankoubon a secondary source?
 * 3) Deal with List of Hiroshi Agasa's Inventions. I would prod it after it's done.

Also I voted a support on WP:FICT, with a condition of a grace period for transwiki.

Cheers,

-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! I'd wondered where you were! For Case Closed, it has no production information and the reception information has only sales figures and awards. It needs reviews from reliable sources as well. The plot may also need expansion. I'm not familiar with the series, so I don't know if it covers all of the major events up through the last completed "arc" (or if it even has main arcs). With that added, it should be able to pass to B class. For List of Lucky Star characters, I'd agree, for the most part characters should only need 1 paragraph, with maybe 2 for main characters. Also, official character sketches (or official anything) and manga-ka's remarks are all considered to be primary sources as they are by its creators. They are reliable sources, but don't add to notability.


 * For List of Hiroshi Agasa's Inventions, since its been to AfD, a redirect would be the best option and in keeping with GFDL if any content is merged. Just make sure to unlink it from other pages afterwards to discourage recreation or excessive IP reverting.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.
 * In the case of List of Lucky Star characters: No, I'm not using those references to establish notability, because notability is supposed to be presented in the main article (Lucky Star (manga) in this case).
 * In the case of List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions, I do not understand some of your answers:
 * a redirect would be the best option seemed to be conflicting with unlink it from other pages afterwards. If there's no link, what's the use of a redirect?
 * -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the character list, if there is any goal to get to FL, it must have outside notability (newer thing that started happening while you were away). For the invention list, if any content is merged from that list elsewhere, then the article history must be kept so it must be redirected rather than deleted per GFDL. If nothing is merged, then another AfD would be needed to delete since its been there once negating a prod ability. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to do it this far at this stage; doing Case Closed material is time-consuming already. However, I checked WP:FL and WP:FL? and did not say about the notability criteria you mentioned; can you point me where can I find it, please?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a notice that List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions has been selectively merged to Hiroshi Agasa, per previous agreement.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) It isn't listed as an WP:FL criteria specifically, but you can see a recent discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga where it was discussed with input from an FL director who confirmed that character lists missing that kind of info will never pass. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read and found it confusing. There clearly would have receptions towards a fictional work, and probably a few characters (Putting in consideration of WP's verifiability guidelines), but I doubt very few works would probably have that amount of sources to write a character list with reception for each and every character.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need reception on each and every character (unless someone wanted those characters to have articles of their own), rather there needs to be enough information to be able to add a reception section to the character list covering, at minimal, the overall reception of the characters in general. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back on the merger: I have effected the merger more than 24 hour ago, and removed the source of the majority of inlinks, Template:Case Closed, which was used in all DC/CC related articles. However, it seemed the what links here page have not been updated...?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe "what links here" is cached, similar to search results, so it takes a bit for it to be updated. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for White Dog

 * Cool beans! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I really want to see that movie, that sounds genious! –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend it. I remember watching it on late night/early morning cable long ago, and was so happy when it finally got the DVD release it deserved. I never knew it had been deliberately suppressed until I started working on the article though. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)
Seeing as my old thread was deleted... As you probably know, List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1) failed FLC. As you seem to be one of the few WP:ANIME members who has watched this (or at least nobody else has confirmed that they have), would you possibly be able to copyedit the episode list? I'd really like to get this to FL some time in the next two months or so if at all possible... (sorry if it seems like I'm trying to push this FLC because in fact, I am). N OCTURNE N OIR ( t &bull; c ) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could help, but unfortunately, I suck at copyediting. I have to get everything I do copyedited first to correct my grammar issues (and I've never seen the full series, so I can't even do a check for completeness :-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arg, I'm going to tear my hair out at this rate... Is there simply nobody in WP:ANIME who has watched this series and/or can copyedit? I'm not even concerned with weight at this point... I can probably fix that, but I need someone to fix the flow so it can pass FL... Any idea who else I can bug? I think I might have tried almost everybody at this point. N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...me, I still don't get why people can't copy edit a series they haven't seen for pure grammar/prose flow. Hmmm...have you tried or ? They are both good copyeditors who I've worked with before on a variety of topics (Keeper took on the insane task of CEing the Naruto character list before its FLC) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeper seems to have gone on an indefinite wikibreak, but I'll drop a message at Malleus's talkpage. Thanks! N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, pooh...guess I better add a note to my list of CEs. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I lied... He still hangs out here, though I'm unsure if he still copyedits... If Malleus can't do it, I'll ask Keeper next. Thanks for your help! N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth asking Keeper anyway. He knows what he's doing, and two heads are better than one. Or should that be many hands make light work? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I go ahead and ask him? I didn't know if it was a good idea to have two copyeditors working on the same page... Sorry for hijacking your talkpage, AnmaFinotera... N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries...nice to have it used for good purposes :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I hate dumping this under an unrelated heading, but for a series like List of Spice and Wolf episodes, where the English episode titles have not been confirmed, what should be done? It makes the most sense to put a (lit.) behind each, but since you're more experienced than I am, might you be able to tell me exactly how this should be done? N OCTURNE N OIR ( t &bull; c ) 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but usually the ones I see just put the translated title for the English title, including some FL lists for unlicensed series, maybe with a note in the lead about the English titles being translations. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapters
If I may completely hijack this thread, I don't suppose you have any OMG volumes, do you, Nocturne? Especially ones from Dark Horse's original release, I'd like to know just what chapters were included and in what order. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. I didn't like OMG enough to purchase it, unfortunately. However, I'm fairly sure that the information can be found either through Amazon or some other online resource. If you need help with refs, certianly let me know. Again, sorry for hijacking your talkpage, AnmaFinotera... N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't need help there... Dark Horse's website lists all their OMG-related stuff, going all the way back to the original edition releases, complete with release dates and ISBNs... the only thing missing is chapter lists. The main thing keeping me from just sourcing the whole chapter list at this point is the size of the list (37+ volumes' worth, with three English editions), combined with the fact that this is a very unique chapter list... but the last point makes it just as much fun as intimidating, and I'm really enjoying brainstorming possible ways to reformat the list (one thing I've already decided on is to split the list after chapter 20 and just use the traditional Graphic novel list for volumes 21-current, and to put the chapter titles in between the releases for volumes 1-20, instead of to the left, as the list is currently doing). This work should also help with other chapter lists (Maison Ikkoku or Ranma ½, anyone?), which only adds to my enjoyment of it (dear God, is it just me or am I weird as hell? XD ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just you, but still makes us all weird :P (at least, according to my real life associates who just don't get why I "waste" so much time working on articles here anyway). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this look as a layout for the first twenty chapters? I'd particularly appreciate input on the widths I chose (based off of those used by ) and how I might better handle the left volume column header cells with respect to the language being in every cell. Thoughts? (I've already finished splitting the list and formatting volumes 21-current with Graphic novel list, if you want to take a look) 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I started the current re-formatting of manga chapters.  I'd be happy to go through my volumes (I have the original large DH printings of 1-20 and the small 21-current) and correct the chapter names if that's what needed.  It may have to wait until this weekend or something though.  Also, I like the formatting Dinoguy came up with for the early chapters. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, official chapter titles would be nice. I'll work on updating the table when I'm through my watchlist (assuming I have the time) while I try to figure out whether (and how) to list DH's original releases. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew, just finished updating the list with the new format... how's it look? Next thing to do is to ref all the reldates, add the cover characters, and figure out what to do with DH's original release (I'm thinking another table underneath the uncollected chapters section, but I'm not 100% sure yet). In any case, I'm not doing any of this today - I've had enough of this chapter list for now. =) 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...not completely fond of it, but certainly way better than the previous one and best option I've seen so far for dealing with these few weird releases. Any way to tweak the headers and widths to keep the dates from wrapping? (my minor pet peeve for table layouts :P) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't completely like it, either, but this has been at the back of my mind for months, and I've been specifically mulling over it for weeks, and this was the best I could come up with. As for column widths, do you mean ISBNs? On this monitor (1440x900) reldates and ISBNs don't wrap, and on another monitor with a smaller resolution (I think it's 1200 x something), only the ISBNs wrap. Regardless, though, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable messing with the column widths now until we get the official English titles as well as kanji and romaji titles (and I've stuck all the sources in, since that will add a bit to the width of the dates). Currently, the four reldate/ISBN columns take up 60% of the table width (15% each), and when you throw in the two # columns (4% each), that only leaves 32% width for the chapters column.
 * Know, I meant the dates. Like September and the day appear on one line, then the year is rapping. That annoys me :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your screen resolution, if I might ask? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard, 1024x768 :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah, I was afraid so. Can you give me some widths that prevent the dates from wrapping on your screen? I don't have a monitor of that resolution for testing, and I can't change the resolution on the library computers. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually 17% for date fields has been working for me. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is sometimes worthwhile to give these fields a fixed width, in which case only "Chapters" would resize, depending on the resolution. G.A.S talk 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @AnmaFinotera: ✅. Previously, I upped the fields to 16% width (since I ended up on a computer using 1024x768 and thus *was* able to test it... funny thing, fate is), that stopped dates from wrapping for me, but some of the refs still ended up on the next line.
 * @G.A.S: I'm not too sure about fixed widths myself, because of the possibility of people browsing with a different font size. If we set fixed widths on the table to prevent wrapping on 1024x768, and someone comes along with font size set above "normal" or "medium", they'll get wrapping whether their resolution is 1024x768 or 2000x1600. I'd rather use percentages at the cost of possible wrapping at low resolutions for some, than use fixed widths and ensure that some get wrapping regardless of their screen resolution. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just corrected the chapter titles up to volume 31 and added the cover characters while I was at it. Glad I could help. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool beans, it looks pretty good (except the cover characters are in the wrong format - they should be a bulleted list, but I can fix that up). I don't suppose you know if the chapter names change at all between the first release and the second one (since I found out that, for all intents and purposes, there are only two releases, with a re-release of the first three volumes... gah, why's it got to get more complicated every time I look)? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the "1-555-GODDESS" titles were the same as those used in the "Wrong Number / Leader of the Pack / Final Exam" volumes but I'll verify them. There used to be a note about the first volume on the top of the page but it was removed by our host on November 14 - AnmaFinotera, was there a reason for that? I don't own the recent unflipped re-releases but I'm going to a comic-book store tonight so I'll see if they have any of them that I can check. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The good news is that "1-555-GODDESS" uses the same chapter titles as the three collections that replaced it. The bad news is that the new releases use different chapter titles - not sure whether it makes sense to list both, or how to keep people from switching them back and forth if you only list one. And I don't own the new re-releases, so I can't add the new titles myself. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was rewriting the lead in something of a hurry and incorrectly thought it was noted in the table. Feel free to restore that note. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead needs a complete overhaul anyways, but I'll eventually try to do that as part of the present cleanup/expansion/sourcing. I'm not worried about the chapter titles from the 1-555-GODDESS release (though it is nice to hear they're the same as the ones used for the second, flipped release); just how much do the titles differ between the Wrong Number release and the unflipped release (and do you know if there is any point where the titles become the same)? Also, would you be willing to write plot summaries? You should be able to work off of the Wrong Number release while writing for the chapter groupings in the unflipped release. If you do write them, don't worry about trying to place them in the table, you can simply post them to the talk page (AnmaFinotera would probably appreciate that over posting them here ;) ), and I can add them to the table for you. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I only looked at volume 1, but there were a number of differences there - I think "Wrong Number" became "The Number You Have Dialed is Incorrect" and "Into the Lair of the Anime Otaku" became something like "The Lair of Anime Mania". Chapter 6 changed as well but I can't remember the new wording.  As for plot summaries, the flipped releases are organized into plot arcs much more than the unflipped releases are but I'll see what I can do.  Is there a WP page with good plot summaries (of some other series) so I can see how much detail to go into? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Marmalade Boy chapters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters are to FL chapter lists with summaries (those two are considered to be around the max length desirable). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh... some of those could be rather nasty then. If you're able to get ahold of the unflipped releases for long enough, could you make a list of the differences and post them to the chapter list's talk page? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ep 12.5
Ah, time to rehijack my thread. AnmaFinotera, I'm thinking of resending List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1) to FLC. I got Malleus to copyedit it, as you know, so the only remaining issue should be episode 12.5. As a temporary solution, I've removed it under WP:V, but I really would like to readd the episode back in with a source. I've looked pretty much everywhere and all the sources I can find fail WP:RS, so I doubt sourcing the episode will be possible, though. Any ideas? N OCTURNE N OIR ( t &bull; c ) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...is it on the Japanese DVDs? I would think its existance is a source enough for its being there somewhere, though without a source on the airdate, maybe at the end or in a subsection as an extra episode? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not on a single DVD in the US or in Japan. Vol 4 ends with episode 12 and vol 5 starts with episode 13, completely skipping over episode 12.5. The only reason I know it exists is because I've watched it. Reliable sources for it simply do not exist, which is why it's causing me such a headache. N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How odd...usually it would at least be on the Japanese DVDs somewhere...not sure how to handle that one then. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the episode was used as a filler episode, but I'm surprised that the company refuses to admit its existence on a DVD or on the web. ANN and anidb confirms its existence and airdate (as does cal.syoboi, a source of unknown reliability). You'd think there would be a source somewhere out there, right? N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd think! Was it that bad of an episode? :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't remember it entirely, but as far as I know, it was incredibly boring. How good can a recap episode be, anyways? N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey...could have gotten four in a row! *cough* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait are you serious? They had FOUR!? Grah, insanity. Anyway, I have opened another FLC for List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1), so I wanted to let you know. If you could comment, that'd be great. Thanks! N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. There was some production issue, I think, so they made those to fill in. Talk about fan complaints! Most people I know who got the single DVD volumes were happy Bandai put them together so they could be skipped LOL. Will try to take a look at the FLC after I get back from getting groceries :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More pages need protection
Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film). Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film) Balto (film)', Talk:Balto (film), and Robin Hood (1973 film)'', all of these pages need indef semi-protection. I tried contacting LessHeard vanU but he's not online. Elbutler (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll need to submit to WP:RPP. Note that they have become the newest target of Bambifan101's sock and note which how many socks have appeared and hit so far. I'm not an admin so I can't do the protections myself. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball characters
First let me say thanks for helping me take care of this page. Now about that note in Gotenks, it says "In its English release of the series in the 25th volume Viz erroneously labels the chapter as chapter 298 instead of 299 on page 103, though the table of contents on page 6 which accurately gives 299." ... any ideas on how to improve it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob. I'll see if I can think of a good reword. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like "On page 103 of the English release of volume 25, chapter 299 is erroneously labeled chapter 298, although it is correct in the table of contents on page 6."? There's no reason to state that it's Viz's fault, since the blame could (and most likely does) lay with the translator or editor as opposed to the whole company; and in any case, it's hardly important. On the other hand, if it was meant to show that it was Viz's English release that had the mistake (which should be obvious, since IIRC Viz is the only English licensor/distributor), that can be specified by just replacing the first "the" with "Viz's": "On page 103 of Viz's English release of volume 25, chapter 299 is erroneously labeled chapter 298, although it is correct in the table of contents on page 6." 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Viz Media's North American English release of the manga incorrectly labels chapter 299 as being chapter 298 on its title page (page 103), though the table of contents lists the chapter correctly." earlier today. "erroneously labeled" sounds better though. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*back :D*
Our internet like died for a few days, but I'm back again! And why did you undo my edit on Kanon Wakeshima? I think it looks a lot better than having two parenthesis, so it's easier to put it in the Nihongo template... But whatever  moo cows rule talk to moo 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you request a page be locked or protected? Because Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series) REALLY needs to be locked. It's come under a large amount of fan speculation and needs to be locked desperately!  moo cows rule talk to moo 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it is formatted properly according to the MoS as is. :) For page protection, see WP:RPP for reasons a page can be protected and how to file a request. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * >.< *so much fan speculation* *dies D:*... People have been changing Naruto Shippūden: Narutimate Accel 2 to Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja 5 and claiming it might be released in November (and adding notes saying it's going to be released then because if you take the time between Accel 1 and 2 (like April to December or something) that it should be released in November and it's confusing D:)... Thanks, I'll take it to the RPP...  moo cows rule talk to moo 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Fay's name
Check out User talk:Dragonmaster88 - exactly the type of stuff I try to steer clear of. =P 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to my world *evil laugh* Talk about a snarky response though (not that I'd expect otherwise from him - for amusement, he also "semi-protected" an article...though he isn't an admin). Posted a reply. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab "Hershey's"
Thanks for the benefit of your greater familiarity with the Hershey's-related topics, and please say so (here is fine) when you're done, so we avoid further edit conflicts. You may also want to give some serious attention to WP:MoSDab and WP:Dab, since, as it stands, some of what you've changed will have to be put back. While it appears (contrary to what one of your edit-summaries might be construed to say) that you have a grasp of the fact that Dabs do not have entries for everything that is simply called by the term being disambiguated (someone's error, which i presume got the Dab tagged for CU in the 1st place), you should consider looking into the distinction between primary-topic Dab'n and equal Dab'n; you may be in effect making a reasonable argument for --Jerzy•t 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Hershey Company to be renamed "Hershey's" (and the Hershey's Dab to move to Hershey's (disambiguation), or
 * 2) (a situation that i believe to be a common sense extension of the explicit guidelines, and implicit in them) "Hershey's" being a Rdr to The Hershey Company, and the lead line of Hershey's (disambiguation) reading
 * Hershey's is the chocolate-focused manufacturer The Hershey Company.


 * The Hershey Company is the official company's name, so renaming that article is not an option at all. It would be completely inaccurate. "Hershey's" is the name used on many of its products, but not all of them, so all of those options would be severe misstatements. Hershey's is also the name used on the products made by Hershey Creamery Company, which are not the same company nor even related (if you check the latter, you can enjoy reading about their rather embittered legal battles over that Hershey word). So redirecting Hershey's to The Hershey Company would not be neutral nor the best option, to me, as there are also other Hershey's (though not as many as Hershey). I created the dab over the redirect that was already there because it was simply redirecting to The Hershey Company, which was not a neutral treatment, IMHO, of Hershey Creamery Company. I'm not a dab expert or anything, I had someone who does work in dabs check it and he tagged it for clean up. Perhaps another option would be to merge it to Hershey (disambiguation) to ensure more neutral treatment. I created separately because other similar type things seem to be considered separate entries in other dabs I looked at. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suspect you are right about not renaming: there does seem to be an indecent degree of respect paid to "official names" of organizations. (E.g. tho no one insists on moving Moll Flanders to The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders, and despite what the Constitution calls it, we have Supreme Court of the United States, -- copied from its Web page headline -- for what would be sensibly be Supreme Court (U.S.).) There are a couple of non-controversial guideline deviations that i too would have places a tag over, if i weren't already working on it; i'll clean them up. But my main concern at this point is with the 300s: there's nothing wrong with a user learning something on a Dab page, but entries have to be written for the sole purpose of getting, in this case, someone interested in the series of races those 3 were part of, to Camping World 300, despite their name for it being "Hershey's". (Note that Hershey's Kisses 300 is a Rdr they could have used if they knew that much, and they're not likely to stray to Hershey's Chocolate World bcz we fail to mention the Kisses.) The place where they learn, or refresh their memory, about what "Hershey's" has to do with the article they want should be at that article. Take a look tomorrow; if you're still uncomfortable with it, we can close this here and copy it onto MoSDab talk to seek consensus among more heads. --Jerzy•t 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor tweaks to the first two, but otherwise its fine. And true on the races (though if I remember right, only two of the races have redirects)...it just seemed unbalanced to decide Hershey's meant the chocolate company when the others are fairly big in their own rights. :) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not in perfect agreement, but for me, in adequate agreement. For the record, i'd put "nickname" only in the target article, in contrast to my (clumsy and picky) "theme-park/visitor-center facility", bcz confusion abt the nick would not interfere with selecting the right article, while i can imagine someone ruling out HCW bcz they are familiar with only one aspect (theme park or visitor center, but not the only one we mention). But evaluating the wording of either the company's entry or HCW's is pretty subjective, and disagreement is neither surprising nor worth trying to eliminate. Thanks for the good process! --Jerzy•t 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gundam 00 characters
Would you take a look at this proposal, Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters, and comment on it? --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sand Land
There is a discussion over here concerning the title of the article. What can you make of it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment left there :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So did you get any input? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still seems to be pretty back and forth :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Astro Boy
Is this a violation of WP:DIRECTORY or something? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like that guy is plastering that thing all over the place, but the site itself seems legit. Still, not sure that's appropriate. Might be something an administrator should look at. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'll leave it be. Least (s)he stopped spamming. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Forever Knight
I just looked up WP:RS and I assume you're talking about Self-published sources? You might want to re-read that section. Fansites are not actually NOT WP:RS While there may be de-facto rejection of many "fansite" writing, there are certainly decent source materials that can be found on selected ones-- And especially in cases where there is no alternative!!! Cuvtixo (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, a fansite is NOT a reliable source and no, it is not even a decent source. It fails ALL aspects of RS, not just being self-published. Nor is it the only possible source for anything related to that series. Again, do not continue attempting to add such sites (it also is a WP:COPYRIGHT violation). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for your help on the Fushigi Yugi article ^^ --Refuteku (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Son Goku article progress
I've done some work on the references are they acceptable? Sarujo (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Several need some formatting (many of the web cites are missing basic info like author, if available, publisher, date released, date accessed, language for non-English sources). Beyond that, #35 (Voice chasers) does not appear to be RS. Voices can be voiced to an episode and the films as long as they have credits. Ditto 41 & 42 (CrystalAcids) and 46 (Idoke). Ep 55 to a TV.com episode page isn't reliable because that's all use submitted content. Ep 64 should cite the original episode if it aired on TV, rather than an online video (even legit one). Rest all look good except the formatting issues :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement "Voices can be voiced to an episode and the films as long as they have credits." doesn't make sence. The problem with the voice actors section was it was tagged with a citation request tag making it clear that claims of actors to rolls required sources. The TV.com source was left by accident by me, I over looked it. The Robot Chicken sketch A Very Dragon Ball Z Christmas did air on TV and was also released on DVD. So I'll just source the DVD set then. Sarujo (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Who flagged it? Usually, you can do an episode or film citation for a role because its easily checked (film articles, for example, need no citations on who played what unless its actually an issue of dispute or an uncredited roll). I know in List of Naruto characters cites were added for the voice actors, but I don't think they are really necessary. For Robot Chicken, you can just cite the episode itself using cite episode rather than the DVD. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that KojiDude was the culprit as seen    here. But I'd feel alot better with stuff such as this had sources to strengthen integrity.
 * And I'll do that. Sarujo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which references needs reformating? Sarujo (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 1 is not using the cite template, I think, while the rest are. Its also missing page #s, author, publisher, volume/issue. #4 needs to be templated with cite book as well. 5-7 are missing page numbers and need the all caps fixed. A lot of the manga references have only chapters, without page numbers which will be needed for any higher level class acceptance. Chapter names should not be italicized, just #: name (in cite 18, its bolded and that also needs fixed) For ref 10 and any other episode citations, minutes needs to be removed (that isn't for episode length). Also clear out the parameters that aren't needed to compact the page size some (like |episodelink= |credits= |url= |began= |ended=). Cite 11 needs cite web formatting. 30 is missing details and possibly cite template. 31-45 need minor title corrections (don't think ANN adds profile to the page name) and ANN needs wikilinking to its article. In 46, Dragonball shouldn't be italicized unless they do it in their title, and whole article title should be in italics anyway. Author name needs to be fixed into first/last params to match others. 48 needs correcting/citing - if its citing an ep, should cite ep. If its citing a DVD feature, Cite DVD-notes. Cite 50 seems like it might have something backwards. 52-54 are missing key details and need formatting into the appropriate templates. 56-58 are missing the language=Japanese param. 59-61 are missing key details needed to identify the source and need templating. 62-64 are missing some details, like season number, and need the series links added. 65-67 need title checks; is 67 WP:RS? 69-73 need title clean up (using Amazon's mixed up casing at the moment), should be capitalized first letter of all words except minor ones like of/or/and, etc). 76 has an error in there causing two ((. 78 is missing details. and 79 is missing author info (if available), release date, and language.


 * Overall on many of the references: Authors and publishers should also be linked in the refs (for authors, use authorlink parameter, for publishers regular wikilinks). All dates in all references need to be unlinked. There is no accessdate for books or any other reference except online ones. "|edition= Tankōbon" isn't needed on any manga reference and clutters things up, nor is format=Paperback (that is really intended to use when linking to an online version, not the format of the book). Hope that helps :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes to many of the references. Sesshomaru went behind me and delinked the dates while I was away. But I'm sure I've got more to go.
 * I don't see how 50 can be backwards, could you elaberate? Sarujo (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind...just checked that one again and now looks fine. Must have been looking too fast :) And yep, still some dates left to delink :D I used a script to try to get the rest, but may want to double check that it didn't miss any. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mizuki Kawashita‎
Can you help keep an eye on Mizuki Kawashita‎. is up to his old tricks again by claiming that my actions has no consensus despite the supporting comments I received at Articles for deletion/Akane-chan Overdrive and copied and pasted the entire article into the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. I'd added the article to my watchlist but forgot to add hers. :P Ugh...I see he's running around yelling all over the place, including asking Dream Focus to help him. Yay...more personal attacks for me! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The last couple of people who personally attacked me received indefinite blocks. But right now, I don't feel like bother with an ANI report. However, if the personal attacks continue, I may become more motivated. ;) --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully they will calm down. Meanwhile, certain people are running around trying to claim WP:NOT forbids plots of any length in any article...and that all projects are just "small groups of people" skirting policy with the various MoS giving lengths of plots. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Evil" comment on Talk:Dragon Ball XD
Hey AnmaFinotera, did you know this comment added exactly 666 bytes to the page size? Just a useless little factoid that I found quite funny, for some reason or another... 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ROFLOL-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mwahaha!! XD –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaugh!! XO
This article needs serious attention! Look for yourself. And look at the history, it is a vandalism hotspot. I remember the article looking pretty good last time I saw it. But now it just looks like that has been covered up with vandalism that hasn't been reverted for a while. There's even tags and everything, one of them looks like it was vandalised as wel because it says September 1940 on it. It needs to be protected ammediatly! The infobox is even broken with dead links. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like there is at least one editor watching it and reverting daily. It needs some more clean up and lots of sourcing, but otherwise its not as bad as some :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, actually it looks like someone reverted a whole ton. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Um....
Hi, yeah, sorry about that, I am a bit bored today. I'm just avoiding doing housework, and thinking where to start researching for an article about an Icelandic company (which is complicated as I don't speak Icelandic). Anyways, and good work! TubularWorld (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah...I know that feeling :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Askelpios
LOL, they released the first volume of Askepios, and right after that the series ended. Goes to show ya. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Guess they figure they might as well go ahead and release it :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Going to GA/FA
You have quite a bit of experience here, and as someone who is distant from the article's source material, your opinion is very much appreciated. I'm getting bored of Love Hina's B class, or perhaps more accurately, it's now time to look towards GA/FA if not for now, then for later in the year.

I've got a couple of things later to satisfy some suggestions GAS made during it's assesment for B, but after that any information that can be added isn't going to make vast differences to the content or tone. After looking at the other GA's I don't think the article is far off, a copyedit and peer review should be enough, but I'd like your honest assesment of the article as it stands now. The real things to add are plot summarys for the 2 tv specials, and the Video games/Albums could probably read better. I'll ask GAS for his thoughts once I've done the edits too in case he has anything else, but I'm assuming he has more experience of the franchise then you do so he may notice things that someone with little to no experience of the subject matter may not.

For what it's worth, I'm aiming for GA first, then FA at a later date rather then aiming straight for FA Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say its getting pretty close to GA. A few things I'd mention in a PR would be the lead needs work - it shouldn't need any referencing for this type of article. It needs to be a summary of the article, and shouldn't need to introduce new information. It also isn't completely summarizing the article yet (has no reception summary in the lead). The plot doesn't seem like a full summary, as it appears to be missing the ending. Also, don't forget, if the article has a character section, it needs referencing (it isn't considered to be the same as a regular plot summary). Other than that, agreed on the need for a copyedit to help with prose, text flow, and minor stylistic tweaks. Good luck! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, sure you said before that character section didn't need referencing (or some connotation of that). I'll definately have a look at the lead/plot summary. The plot is a little harder due to the difference in anime and manga storyline past point x - the second half of the Tv series deviates heavily from the manga storyline. I actually need a RS to show this properly - most RS reviews don't compare the manga though :( Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot summary doesn't need it, but learned with Tokyo Mew Mew that character sections do. Remember, the main plot summary should cover the original media. Use a differences section to summarize major differences between the two series, where it can be reliably sourced (though some sourcing can be from the anime episodes itself, depending on the type of difference). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Difference section below plot or inside the anime section? The sort of differences would be quite noticable, I don't think episode sourcing is innapropriate there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a subsection within the plot section. See Wolf's Rain, for a somewhat okay example. The main thing is to make sure to stick general differences without getting bogged down in lots of little ones. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to need more effort then I originally thought! After seeing the comments in the TMM GA discussion that G.A.S linked me too, I've spotted some other improvements. So After moving all the refs out from the lead, I've started changing some of the Amazon refs to publisher pages, which really I should have done in the first place (but Tokyopop don't give release dates!) Probably not as much effort as from C to B class, but not far off! Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Tokyopop's site rather sucks. They do actually have release dates, just not on the publication page. Instead, you have to go through the alphabetical catalog browse feature and the dates are shown there with the thumbnails leading to the volume info pages. See List of Kare Kano chapters for an example of sourcing to that (sources 9 & 10).-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a great site a few years ago, then when they started doing "fake" manga they went a bit loopy. Front page is better now then it was a few months ago, but content wise it's been better Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Jordan's debut album
Umm, Stanley Jordan clearly meets the notability guidelines since he has had multiple albums released on major labels (Blue Note, EMI, Capitol) and is an influential musician in terms of his use of two-handed tapping technique. Why did you mark the article on his debut album with the notable tag? Donald Hosek (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He may be a notable music, but that does not mean the album is. See WP:MUSIC for the guidelines regarding albums. Without significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, it isn't notable even if it is by a notable artist. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. " There are a lot more albums that you could tag similarly, but the question with the article in question is one of quality, not of notability. Donald Hosek (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * May have does not mean automatically have. As it also states, it must actually meet WP:N, requiring significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Again, if its notable, it should be relatively easy to add actual reliable sources showing significant coverage of it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyblade
I tagged this for proposal for mergint he serpate vfore and grevolution article sinto the main beyblade articles and remove some fan stuff, i havnt been active much lately so i havent been kepe tabs on changes but it seems that a fan has remove the tags include article isseus and replace the fan stuff, since you are one the manga and anime people it probally better you retagging it for merging.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Retagged and starting discussion, adding in the manga and film. Also cleaned up the article to remove a lot of the cruft and fan opinions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed Episodes
Since the release of the season 4 for List of Case Closed episodes have been released, I think it's safe to assumed how the seasons will be divided, so should it be changed? If it does get changed, will 20+ seasons cause problems? What would happen of they suddenly decided to stop dubbing the series? Also for season 1 to 4, I think the two hour episodes should be changed into two parts instead of remaining one episode with the words (1 hour special). Is there an official Japanese episode list somewhere? Should pictures of the English DVD's be posted onto the season pages? I'm done for now.DragonZero (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having 20+ shouldn't cause any problems (see List of Lassie episodes), though the page may be slower loading. While it takes longer, I think perhaps it would be best to continue doing one season at a time, as they are released, rather than trying to guess, though may be worth discussing again to see if consensus will agree to a "best guess." If the series gets dropped, the subsequent pages would have to be redone back to the Japanese seasons, which would rather suck. The hour episodes should be listed however they originally aired (if they aired as two episodes in Japan, then list as two, otherwise leave as one). Yes, one picture of each Season DVD set should be on the individual pages. http://www.ytv.co.jp/conan/archive/ is the YTV page listing all of the episodes from 266 through 523. Not sure if there is a way to get to the rest by moving around more or not. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was beginning to create the page for the fourth season, but I made a mistake somewhere and the dates became messed up. It's on my User page. Also for some reason, I think I screwed up on my User page and listed myself on the Megaman Game Category somehow. Can you edit my userpage if possible?DragonZero (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the dates for you. For the category, it was caused by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Mega Man/to do template. Someone forgot to put a : in front of a category link. Fixed that and should be fine on your user page now :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, for character pages, should the voice actors be set up like Naruto and placed with the paragraph, or should it have a format like this page List of Buso Renkin characters. The last edit moved the voice actors section.DragonZero (talk)


 * I'd follow Naruto since its FL :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, can you delete some unnecessary information on this article Rumble Fighter, if it's too troublesome, could you list some things I should delete?DragonZero (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend cutting down the system specs in the infobox...its really stretching the page. Beyond that, I'd recommend cutting down the gameplay section to the basic overview, culling some of those non-free images, and all of those lists and tables as they are game guide type info that just doesn't belong. The ELs need clean up, too. With that cut down, I'd recommend working on adding a reception section, and production/development info if its available. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution
Since the discussion here is going rather slow, do you still object to restoring that bit about the name change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The name change isn't really needed in the lead like that. It should be in the production section, but that's about it, to me, since it wasn't a change made after release, just a change in working title. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but I've seen other films do something similar. Aside from Mr. Bean's Holiday, there is War and The Last Airbender. Can't remember anything else ATM. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are alternate release names, rather than working titles, from what I can see. If it had been released as Dragonball in some places, and Dragonball Evolution in others, then putting it in the opening would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * French Bean was a working title for the Bean sequel for a long while, but I see your point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.
I never claimed to be. You're asking the wrong person. Half Shadow  18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, it was dealt with. I must have clicked the wrong name, though, because I thought I'd clicked the admin who'd last blocked him. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * S'alright; I just didn't want you getting the wrong idea. Half  Shadow  18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Like Me, Schoolmate
The article is a suspected hoax, with no one being able to turn up any sources to show the series actually exists. However, the article claims it's been running in Shojo Beat, which you have all the issues to. Care to comment on the veracity of that particular claim at Articles for deletion/Please Like Me, Schoolmate? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Total hoax...never appeared in SB at all. Left a note there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Aggie Articles for deletion
I am trying to assume good faith with your posts. While initially I might react strongly negative towards the several AFD you have done to Aggie related pages, I do realize that questioning, and critics are vital in this type of environment to assure quality. So, yes, please to question every page's notability, and I guess, I will try to defend every page's notability. It is just that quotes like this get under my nerves. If you could try to pepper your language with less extremes, and try to understand that people to take pride in their own work, notable or not. That would be appreciated. Thanks and Gig Em! Oldag07 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "overly inflated." Dixie Chicken AFD page 2
 * "and completely unnecessary" (List of Aggie terms AFD with i am proud to say is now a Featured list!)

3RR block on Anime Pulse
I hate to do this, AnmaFinotera, but due to the edit warring (,, , , and ) on Anime Pulse over the inclusion of an image, and because User:Ichigo-go-go was blocked for the same thing, I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. If you have a content dispute, please use the talk page to discuss the issue rather than entering into an edit war over it. This is nothing against you as I think you generally do a great job, but we need to be fair if the other person in the dispute is blocked as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not LOOK at what he was doing? I bet DreamFocus is deliriously happy now...he finally managed to con someone into blocking me for reverting vandalism. Also, why did you remove the merge tags from Cardcaptor Sakura? There is a discussion going on, actively, about the mergings. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reviewed the whole series of edits, and in only the final two of them do you even mention vandalism. At no time did you really answer the other editor's questions or attempt to engage them in a discussion of why the image might be inappropriate for the article. As the user appears to be new and/or inexperienced, it would be more effective to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the user's talk page instead of using Twinkle to continuously revert his edits. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His first two edits were nasty personal attacks against someone...sorry, but that's not a sign of being new nor inexperienced, but likely an IP who registered to continue bad behavior. Nor am under an obligation to explain why his vandalism was removed. He was left the appropriate level of ascending warnings, then reported to AI/V and blocked. I suspect if a checkuser was done, we'd find he was one of the IPs involved in that whole on-going mess at that article. DreamFocus took it upon himself to then report a 3RR violation to get me blocked in his on-going vendetta. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but the edits on the article in question were not nasty personal attacks. As for explaining yourself, it's true to are not required to do so, but it certainly helps to provide a decent explanation. My main concern is that I see no evidence of you ever trying to engage the other editor in any sort of discussion as to why the image might be inappropriate. You have to assume good faith, even if past edits may have been less than desirable. It is possible for people to change, even over a short period. Also, the past edits have nothing to do with this series of edits, at least not directly. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And regarding the Cardcaptor Sakura merging discussion, I followed the link and there was no such discussion. Where is it? (not that that has anything to do with this, though...) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The original discussion fell into the archive Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura/Archive 1. Current discussion on doing the merging of the audio: Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be more clearly marked, then. A discussion about merging audio doesn't indicate anything about merging entire articles. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Thanks...I'm still autoblocked though. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be removed now. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, just leave her alone. She was reverting freakin vandalism. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The idiot was trying to vandalise the page, Nihonjoe! Look at his contributions. Get AnmaFinotera off of block emediattly!! –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't enjoy throwing my lot into a drama-filled situation, but I feel some of my input would help this situation, so here I go. Per WP:BRD, AnmaFinotera is correct in her reversion of the addition of the photo. It is in no way relevant to the article and should not have been added. We can debate if this qualifies as vandalism (and I would argue that it does based on the edit summary which should, by all means, be judged through WP:CIV and WP:NPA), but the point remains that the edit was reverted. In BRD, Discussion should be the next step in the process. Here is the mistake that AnmaFinotera made: she made no effort to contact or talk to for adding this material. But is this a blockable offense? I don't believe so. In this case, the "edit warring" on the part of AnmaFinotera was to remove what she believed to be vandalism. A gentle tap on the shoulder, pointing out the fact that she broke WP:3RR (a similar thing should have happened to  in my opinion instead of a block), would have sufficed. I do believe AnmaFinotera should be unblocked in this case (as should, but of course, that is not for me to decide. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments.  N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 19:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your well written response. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's the least I can do for such a prolific editor like yourself. Best of luck to you in the future, and may you avoid the drama-filled goodness that surrounds Wikipedia. I can't help but feel like one of those male characters in a manga, saving a girl... (I'm just kidding, before someone kills me :D) N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

 * Thanks :) Next time I go source hunting locally, I'll see if there is anything to help expand it. I think, though, it should be moved to Bryan-College Station Eagle or Bryan College Station Eagle to match its actual official name. (though will wait till I go to the store later to see what they are actually putting on the paper, but pretty sure its still the full name). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An odd set of edits
Check out these. A reference to BF101 in there. No idea why, but thought you should see it. SpikeJones (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's Bambifan101 as usual. He tends to get annoyed when someone is mistaken for him and is usually quick to point it out, like here. I'd revert all edits, get that weird user subpage he created for no apparent reason CSDed, and report for the usual block. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would rethink your AfD tagging
As I say again and again, I have respected your editing, and you as an editor. We've had a few recent cases of "over the top" AfD filings. The Dixie Chicken (which is currently being SNOW KEEP) is a perfect example. If I were you, I would lay off such nominations for awhile. Just some friendly advice. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I will not stop AfDing bad articles just because some locals/fans band together to make it a snow keep. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)