User talk:Cloud668/Archive 4

Possible future FAs
So I was thinking, just how good is the chance that Kanon, Air, Clannad, and Little Busters! could get up to FA? I think right now that Air probably has the best chance since it's the most recent of the four to have to go through and pass GA, so it's the most up-to-date and copyedited of the four. Of course, Little Busters! has the largest development section, and Clannad has the largest reception. In terms of in-universe detail, Kanon and Air probably have the least, and all of them already have a ton of references, though the image fair-use rationales need to be updated across the board I believe. All in all, I bet at least one of these could get to FA by the end of the year, so I was thinking we could focus on one now, and then try to duplicate the process for the others once we know what we have to do. Of course, a peer review, copyedit, and help from related projects (WP:VG and WP:ANIME) would be a must before FAC, and all of that will take a while. Anyway, what do you think?--  十  八  09:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've actually been thinking that the Key visual novels could actually make it to FA. I've compared the articles to some other VG FAs. Basicly my first concern is that someone may come saying that the reception section doesn't represent a worldwide point of view (I don't really remember where I first saw that but whatever), but since all of the Key visual novels are being released in Japan only as of right now I think that can be possibly argued (though those other ones that are getting an English release wouldn't be so lucky).


 * Another thing I am concerned about, which I hope that I am wrong, is that someone may note the development section is just mostly a list of staff from the whole development team. This is really a problem for Clannad if it ever comes up since all it has is a list of staff other than the release history (although that already covers a lot). Looking at Portals development section which focuses on its concepts and designs, I think we can possibly do something similar to that, and basicly talk about concepts and inspirations, if we can find any from the interviews. Of my least concern would be the Plot sections since they are already pretty organized and well-written, compared to Portals. I think maybe we should get them through a peer review first, and then maybe nominate one of the articles to FAC, just to gain some FAC experince (we haven't been having any recent experince on that for VA articles) and get to know what more they will need to make it through. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right about the development sections. I have in my possession interviews from when Key made Kanon, Air, Clannad, Little Busters!, and Little Busters! Ecstasy, so all I'd have to do is translate any good info I find in them. I have previously used the Air interview in the Air article (ref 11) and I used parts from that interview in the development, setting and themes, and reception sections, though I only read through about half the interview. I also used the Kanon interviews to do the creation and conception section in Ayu Tsukimiya which turned out to be much better than I had hoped for. As for the other interviews, I have yet to read any of them, but there is a ton of info in them, so we don't have to worry about lack of available content.


 * As for the reception, I know they're not the original media, but English reviews of the anime adaptations could suffice to give an English spin on how the series was received. Hell, they can't hurt the reception section, anyway.


 * Finally, I believe I'd be able to work on extracting the necessary information from the Air interview faster than the others, then we could update the reception section with some anime reviews, and possibly adding more cites before going for a PR. I especially like how Airs text is available online at, and then Clannads lines are at , so it'd be easy to cite in-universe detail that way as long as we know what to search for in a given scene (I did it somewhat for Air before, so it shouldn't be impossible). Once Air is at PR, we could start with the others and then get them PRed sometime later, but by then the Air PR will already be overwith, and it's FAC might have already begun, or ended, and having a completed FAC (whether pass or fail) will be instrumental in, as you said, knowing which direction to take for any VN article.--  十  八  00:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated the first seven question/answers (not the sixth one though; didn't really apply) from the Clannad Visual Fan Book into Clannad, but I'm worried about the length of the development section now if I continue on at this pace, especially since there's about 55 more questions in the 8-page interview. That's roughly 2 lines of text in the article for every answer/question so far, eventually getting up to 110 if I went the distance. To put that into perspective, everything in the development and media sections is 100 lines. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's pretty excessive, so what'd be the best way to differentiate between essential development info, and just additional "interesting" fluff (though what I've found so far is pretty interesting).--  十  八  08:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's quite long in my opinion, in fact in think now you should worry about shortening it up a little bit >_>. Well anyways, I've scanned through the questions (really quickly), the ones about Nagisa in the second page I think you should be able to fit it into the settings and themes section (basically what they feel about the stuff that relates to the general plot should be able to fit in there instead). As for the ones in the middle about the characters (I didn't really read most of the questions here but just skipped it through real quick after seeing the names), I think these would better fit into the list of characters instead, since basically they don't really relate to the general plot that much compared to Nagisa's stuff. For that part where they mentioned Yukine's position as a main character being laid off (end of page 122) I guess it's something that could be mentioned, if you can somehow fit it into the section, since I myself don't think I can find a way to do so. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had heard that Yukine was meant to be the sixth heroine (she even appears on the cover of the regular edition of the game) but I never found a source for it; glad to see it came from the fan book. I would fit the Yukine lay off into the gameplay section: (...originally, there were six heroines, but Yukine Miyazawa was dropped as an official heroine due to..." I couldn't really scan the questions, but if there are question/answers that deal with Nagisa or the characters or themes and stuff like that, I'll incorporate them into other sections, such as what I did with adding the note about the lights in the gameplay section. And of course anything directly pertaining to Nagisa I could leave out entirely until I choose to create a separate article for her, but I'd need reception info before I did that anyway. But still, with all the info, that'd be adding roughly 100 new lines to the main article (if they were all kept), which would bloat the sections. I'll try to move as much as I can into the character article if it applies, but I'll see what happens as I translate. And as for the development section right now, I believe the article you referenced earlier would be a good enough model to follow, which has about 30 lines in the concept/design sections combined. Clannad right now has 18 lines (not counting release history, and 13 if you don't count the staff info). I see what you mean about worrying about the length, but as it stands I feel the comparisons between Air and Clannad are sound since it shows Maeda's thought process from Air to Clannad, and why Clannad turned out the way it did after Maeda learned from his previous mistakes. Then again, no one ever said we couldn't have a 100 line development section, but I can see where some at FLC would say that's pretty excessive. :P --  十  八  22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that the Yukine lay off part (I still blame them) would better be left in the development section, but the gameplay section definitely works too (Not like it would sound that logical to jump directly from the After Story part to that anyways). As for the parts about Nagisa (not a lot really, though I find the parts about her theme of "growth" and that her family is the first Key family that's complete a bit interesting), they would definitely fit into her section/page. For the other characters (which accounts for most of the interview), I don't think it'll be a good idea to stuff them into the development section or even the main article. Now as for the sections being bloated (I see you are using a 1280 horizontal resolution), I myself would think it should be trimmed down a bit, but if you really can't (those are interesting stuff to be left in there anyways), I think adding pretty pictures in (not like I can think of anything that could work), splitting them into sub-sections (not a good idea), or dominating the world and make everyone use at least 1920 for horizontal could work.


 * Also, seeing that right now you are editing Clannad constantly, I think that maybe once you are happy with the result, you should submit that version to the WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop (Don't ask me why isn't there a shortcut), or maybe just a version prior to the development bloat if you can't make it in time. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to know then that most of the interview is about the characters, since that'll mean my previous prediction of a 100 line addition were greatly exaggerated. I think I can make the Yukine part fit well into gameplay if I move some stuff around, and with her there, that leaves more stuff for the development. And yes, I am using 1280 (I always forget it's rather nonstandard) but then instead of counting the lines, I'll cite the KB of information. So far, I've added 2.5KB of info from the book, and if all it was added, that'd be about 20 KB, but luckily we won't have to. I'm guessing, then, less than 10 KB in total from the fan book goes into the main article, which would mean another 7 or so KB of info, or roughly another 20 questions if I did the math right. Maybe not even that much; 15 questions perhaps, but as I said I have not gone over the entire book yet.


 * If it comes to the point where the development section is sufficiently large, like what happened to Portal, then organizing it into concept & design I don't think is hard, especially since much of the concept (from what I've found so far) dealt with Maeda realizing what went wrong with Air and improving upon the process. This is especially important since Air was the first game were Maeda headed the planning, and was the main scenario writer (Naoki Hisaya doing both of those in Kanon) so if Maeda was experimenting with Air, he figured out in what direction to go afterwards with Clannad. Finally, adding images is always an option; I'm sure we'd be able to find something in the fan book that'd apply (maybe).


 * And what's the deadline on 0.7?--  十  八  04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you are going to split the development section apart like Portal's, then the section is actually still a little bit short for the task in my opinion, but it's definitely fine to do so if you can throw in more stuff into there, since basicly there's already a level 3 under there called release history. As for adding images in there, we would have the cover art in there, but since it's now happily sitting in the infobox, I guess maybe one of the early designs for the characters in page 159 could work. Though if we ultimately decides on putting the anime's production info in there, we can just grab a still from the storyboard or something I guess.


 * And uhh, never mind, it's past the deadline for 0.7 already. I am not even sure if it's gonna be in the release now but let's hope so. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Memories Off Pure
I agree with you that the two should be merged. It's for the same reason that I never created a separate article for Little Busters! Ecstasy, even though it is different enough for Key to give it it's own game section on their official website, though that also could have just been to differentiate between the all-ages, and adult version of the game. And no, I have never as so much as touched a Dengeki Hime issue, but I do have the recently-released Dengeki G's Festival! Deluxe for Ecstasy which has a good-sized interview, and I also have the Dengeki G's Festival! for Little Busters!, and the Little Busters! Perfect Visual Book which also has interviews, so I'm definitely not short on production info for Little Busters!.--  十  八  06:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I should merge them then. Also, yeah, I figured that you'd probably have the Perfect Visual Book (If I am not mistaken you've mentioned that somewhere). Though, I am wondering if you would also have the Clannad Visual Fan Book, since that has a pretty huge interview in there, which ought to have some info for us to use to expand the development section and maybe some of the others. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck yeah I do (scans anyway). I actually own the real Little Busters! Perfect Visual Book though; it's very nice. And then there's another long Clannad interview I found a couple weeks back, but haven't had a chance to look at it (and it comes from the July 2004 issue of Dengeki Hime, so we can source it that way).--  十  八  08:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have known that you have it in some ways. I personally do own the Visual Fan Book, and after I took a look it really does have some juicy info in there, for example, Maeda has apparently planned to include a dungeon RPG, but it was removed due to time restraints. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, so that's where Dungeons & Takafumis came from, huh? It always amazes me when I read production interviews, like when I read about Ayu's creation and conception, some of the points were really surprising.--  十  八  21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Production phases are always that interesting, so I guess that's why we should also expand on those areas (Well there are actually quite a few in the Key articles, they are just scattered all over the place at where they could fit like the settings and themes or gameplay sections). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  02:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of interviews, I was considering the possibility a couple weeks ago at creating a separate article on Misuzu in the near future. I'm not sure how much info I can get out of the Air interview I mentioned in the above section, but if I'd be able to get enough, then I'm sure I could create an article pretty close to how Ayu's is, especially since the Air anime's been out and licensed longer, and there'd be different reviews for the series and movie I'm sure that I'd be able to find. And I could mention her appearances in Eternal Fighter Zero and Glove on Fight like with Ayu, so I don't think reception is really a problem in that respect. Also, I always wondered if Ayu or any other Key characters ever directly influenced the creation of another character or characters from other visual novels, anime, or manga, but I've never been able to find anything conclusive on this point.

Too bad that I believe Misuzu is the only other applicable Key character (other than Ayu) that can even be worth her own article. And as far as Key heroines go, I'd say she's almost as important as Ayu is, but then Ayu still remains more transcendent if the material in her cultural impact section is any indication. And granted if I were able to write a good Misuzu article, and also get it up to GA, then that'd give me even more incentive to someday do it for Nagisa and Rin as well (though of course it'd be a long long time before I could do a piece on either of them), but of course Nagisa's likeness has appeared in two other games already, and by then English reviews of the anime/movie will invariably be available to comment on Nagisa's character. Although, I'd probably never expect Rin to ever get her own article, but ya never know.

Who else'd you think would be a good candidate for a VN character article? Having Ayu as the only VN character to achieve GA is kind of sad.--  十  八  06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that's a pretty hard one. I'd say that good VN character article candidates would be Nagisa (as you've mentioned), and maybe Rena. The thing is, while both I think is considerably iconic enough, I don't really know if we can find any reliable sources that can cover them. I've just took a look at the DVD reviews on Anime News Network, but apparently they didn't really mention much on Rena's character. (On top of that I don't even know if I can find any materials on Rena's creation process.) Nagisa, on the other hand, would have creation information on her creation (due to the Visual Fan Book), but then again we would also need some more reviews and all that to cover reception, in addition to her appearances in other media. These are the ones I can think of so far, I'll see if I can think of any others later. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also thought of Rena last night, though that would be very difficult to work with for the time being. Other ones I thought of were Rin Tōsaka (or others from FSN), perhaps one or more of the Tsukihime characters, and Hatsune Miku (despite not being from a VN, but getting a character article of her up to GA would be cool too).--  十  八  00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Rin and Arcueid would also be nice choices, in fact they already have quite a detailed article, but then again, these are totally in-universe articles. It'll also be quite nice if we can get a Miku article written, and reception and all that truly wouldn't be a problem.


 * Also, I am wondering if expanding Clannad anime's production would bring the article chance any benefit when bringing it up to FA, as there's a seperate anime Visual Fan Book (no, I don't have that), and the extras that came with the limited edition DVDs (staff interviews, etc), sources wouldn't be a problem I think. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If we did expand on the anime, would we put it in the development section under a new heading, or under the anime section (which I think would bloat an already large section). If we did the former, I suppose we could have a level-3 "visual novel" header, and release history under that, and then another level-3 for "anime". Would be nice if we could do something similar for Kanon and Air as well. Speaking of Kanon, I have the recent anime's Visual memories book, but I think I forget to bring it with me when going back to college; I wouldn't have access to it until December...-_-. Also, there's Airs premium art works, but I don't have it (both books feature interviews, like the Clannad anime book). Might I add that the Air visual fan book (for the game) contains no interviews, which I still cannot believe considering the interviews included in the Kanon, Clannad, and Little Busters! official fan books. There are a lot of linear notes that explain things, but nothing really substantial.--  十  八 ' 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's really a hard one. I think that I would kind of dislike the first idea, but then if we are gonna put the reviews for the adaptations into the reception section I don't see why we can't do that. The second idea that you've mentioned, may work, but like you said would just increase its already-large-enough size. I suppose if we are gonna make it that big, we may as well split it into a subpage, and expect some flamming (this idea will possibly ruin that idea of putting anime reviews into the main article's reception too). A third way that I can think of, which would ruin the organization we have right now, is to merge the development and adaptations section into a "Media development" or something similar to that, with the existing development section be a level 3 header under the title of Visual novel, though I don't even know if I would like that myself.


 * On the other hand, sucks how I don't have any of the fan books for the anime adaptations >_> (I actually have the Commemorative Post Card Books for Clannad but that doesn't count I think), but those would definitely be good sources for the development sections for the anime, so if we really are going to expand on the anime we don't need to worry much about sources. Well the fan book for Air doesn't contain interviews sure do come as a surprise, but considering how there are a few out there on the net, and the article has the largest development section not counting the list of staff and the release history (though Little Busters!'s would contain more development information if you count it), so I wouldn't worry about it much, still of course it would be nice if we can further expand it. I think, for Air, maybe we should focus on the other sections first, then come back to development.


 * And umm, did PCPress's site... went offline...? --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did go offline; I was so pissed off when I noticed this a few days ago, and assumed you realized it already. I'm really hoping it comes back, since the site isn't even archived on archive.org, so if it doesn't come back, we'd have to remove the info we got from the site, for lack of it being sourced. But seriously, what are the chances of the first site, and now this site, going down? Someone's got it out for VN fans.


 * As for the other stuff, I do not think we should have a separate article for the anime. This is already looked down upon within the project, and I'd rather not see a repeat of the failed Air (anime) article if I can help it. And the way the articles are currently formatted is a juxtaposition of WP:VG/GL and WP:MOS-AM, and I would rather we keep the development section (with the release history) separate. The only other thing we could do is have a level-4 header under the anime section for it's development in an effort to make the anime section seem not so long. Although, considering that WP:MOS-AM has a production section, I don't think it's a stretch to merge the way WP:VG and WP:ANIME does it and have them in a single section.


 * And I was entertaining the idea of somehow finally finding a reliable Japanese source with reviews of visual novels. I certainly have found stranger and rarer things on the net, so I already find is unfathomable that we haven't acquired something yet, whether it have been from either searching the net ourselves, having it linked in someone's blog or forum post, or used as references themselves on the Japanese Wikipedia, or other wikis. So I'll be looking around here and there for a while until I've found something, or die trying.--  十  八  04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that we should keep the development section to just the game, but that contradicts the idea of having anime reviews in the reception section. I think I'd prefer, like what you've said, a level 4 header (though by that sense we would also be having a reception under the anime section and make it even harder to get to FA), but to keep things organized, I don't really know.

I've actually backed up the logs from PCPress a few months back during August (though that will still scrape the reception section I have at Twinkle Crusaders since that was released after that), if it's gonna be of any help. But yeah, I really do hate how more and more of these sites are being taken off. The only other source that contains sales information that I know of is Dengeki G's Magazine, but there wouldn't be a point to waste 990 yen per issue plus shipping just to find only the top 10 most sold games or so and to read those manga in the back. I suppose if we can't find another site that has these information we may as well fly to Japan ourselves and start one. Oh, and I died looking for a True Tears review :P. -- クラ  ウド  ６６８  05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot that Gs did that (I guess because I usually skim over it). I actually have the most recent issue of Gs if it's any consolation. And I wouldn't let not finding a True Tears review get you down, because, ya know, the game isn't as popular as the Key titles. :P And yes, even if it kills me. And right now I'd agree only upon putting all development of all the media under one section, or splicing that info into the sub-sections in the media section. I really don't want to put it under its own section.--  十  八  06:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well basicly i just flip the pages in like fifteen seconds and come back to what interests me anyways. And yeah, I pretty much knows how True Tears isn't popular, though it really frustrates me since basically I have been trying to improve on that one specific section for months. Well not like I've seen much reviews for the Key games anyways. Anyways, I'd think that it'd be better if we keep the anime production stuff under the anime section, I think it would be more organized that way at least. Still I guess we should read through anything we can find for the anime (Fan books, staff interviews (like that one with volume 6 of the Clannad DVD) and see how much there is first before we actually decide on a method. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

project tags on redirects
Hi, I've seen you remove an anime and manga project tag from a redirect page. Just wanted to make you aware, that the tag's "class" variable takes "redirect" as an option. So there is no need to remove the tag. Have a nice day. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe it is addressed in the project's Tag and assess 2008 drive that redirects are not to be tagged and assessed, and should be removed instead, which I did. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, whatever... It's just a tag... And instructions aren't so clear after all, it seems: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Anime_and_manga%2FAssessment%2FTag_%26_Assess_2008&diff=246660212&oldid=246624467]. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Key staff
Yeah, I'd say they do. If you thought so, then why not go ahead and add the tag? I don't know why I didn't consider it before.--  十  八  02:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite having read that page for like, a thousand times, I still have yet to correctly follow that specific guideline. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

archive WP:VN
Go ahead and archive anything older than a month. The site is getting kind of long. It doesn't need automated archiving, just occasional cleaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 November 2008

Re: Toki o Kizamu Uta / Torch
Ever since this single appeared on the Oricon charts, I've been tracking it daily, and making sure to keep up on how it's doing in the rankings. So far (for a release by Key Sounds Label at least) it's been doing fairly well, with already 10,563 units sold and it placed as the 13th highest selling single for the week. Trouble is, Oricon doesn't have any permanent listing of the day-by-day rankings, so I've been logging it manually. I'm trying to figure out some way to cite what I know and have in the single's listing, but I haven't found any reliable sources that covered it. Do you know how I can do this?--  十  八  06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh God, I just found out that it's been on Lia's blog since yesterday. Oh well, still good news. If you find any other sources, that would be cool too though.--  十  八  06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this kind of sucks, but I can't find any reliable sources that have noted the single's daily charts achievements. Though Oricon's website do have weekly chart archives (I guess that would be permanent since they have done so since 1999), I guess you could use that to cite that the weekly sales, seeing that you haven't yet. It really sucks how that there isn't reliable sources (that we can find) that would cover these aspects. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I had been waiting for ANN to do that, though I see they took the #12 single's sales numbers instead of this single. I'll post a note on the discussion page about it, and it'll get fixed soon enough. BTW, ANN seems to be lagging for me. Is it the same for you?--  十  八  08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it has been lagging for me too. And I thought it's just my internet. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  08:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that means they're having problems with their servers. ANN better not have some catastrophic crash; I rely on it too much for Wikipedia...--  十  八  09:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, my internet isn't really that quick anyways (my upload speed used to average 100kbps on BitTorrent alone, which just totally killed my download), so I just assumed so that someone else other than me was sharing stuff. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flyable Heart logo
While I don't know of any specific guidelines, the image will still be subject to copyright so a lower-resolution will always be better. I don't think the format matters as long as its low-res, has a fair-use rationale, and licensing info.

And I forgot, Happy Turkey Day.--  十  八  00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But well, having it as SVG really means that it has an infinitely high resolution, so yeah that's what I am concerned about, well I guess I am gonna go ahead and use the SVG when I get home, and see if anyone would say anything. Thanks. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but as long as it's not used at huge resolutions it's alright I think.--  十  八  06:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Flyable Heart
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer talk/contribs 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about how long it's taking for any action to be taken on your DYK nomination. This is twice now that I've left a comment asking for a second opinion, and no one has responded even though it's now the oldest nomination on the page (and has been for a while).  If no one has looked at it by the morning, I might leave a message at the talk page. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's alright, it's not really your fault. Actually, I gotta thank you for pointing those issues out (although I don't really think I cleared much of it up). I really was quite surprised though how that didn't catch anyone's attention when it's been in the backlog for four days. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  09:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the main reason I didn't leave an explicit message at WT:DYK is because I was thinking "oh, now that it's in the very bottom of the backlog, people will look at it right away," which is usually what happens—people usually scramble to get the super-expiring noms either deleted or promoted as fast as possible. That doesn't seem to be happening now, for some reason. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there wasn't the DYKBot. I guess everyone just looked at the backlog back then because they want to get rid of it, but since now there's a bot which sped things up, I guess there's not really much reason left in doing so. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  09:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your comment on the DYK discussion page, I have restored your entry pending review of the hook. Somehow, I managed to overlook a couple of those references, my apologies. I will try to find time to review the hook itself shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now approved your hook, so it should be featured sometime over the next couple of days. My apologies once again for the initial error. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)



—Politizer talk/contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * (outdent) You have had to wait one long-ass time for your hook to be approved (which mostly was my fault; if I had been bold and accepted it earlier this wouldn't have happened) and haven't complained a single time. The DYK credit you get will probably feel pretty good, but in the meantime here's a cookie with chocolate chips. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: BGA
Ooh, that is nice; I had no idea something like that existed. Seems like a lot of people loved G Senjō no Maō, though shockingly one of the higher selling games of 2008 isn't there. Has this been going on since 2007, since I can't find anything before that, even though the site's copyright dates back to 2006.--  十  八  21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the url to the 2006 results is here instead. Yeah, I found it quite interesting that neither Little Busters! nor Ecstasy won an award (something smells fishy here), but hey, it helps the other games. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just found out that it is archived (albeit the last version archived being in February), so in case they decided to take it off, we could also cite it through there (now I just hope they'd archive the more recent versions). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Popotan
can you go ahead and check the article again before i send it off for GA assessment later? I went ahead and added some more info and put some primary source citations. I know the blog is still used as a source, but there is nothing better and I can still cite other sites claiming it as the original as well. じん   ない  01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be checking it in a moment (and be posting that at WT:VN, as always). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I have papers due this week and finals. Then I may be out of town. If you post the questions about the blog, while i'm away, make certain to note that it it's a typical blog entry about someone's opinion. The guy actually did fact checking to the best of his ability and all his information is cited. I would also cite WP:IGNORE because of the exceptional case that removing the content would actually harm the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia as the spread of the item is considered one of the most well-known forms of internet memes. じん   ない  21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have taken a look at the first half of the article (replied at the article's talk page, as opposed to what I said eariler). Now coincidentally, I myself will soon be taking finals too, if possible would you mind me to check the rest of article at a later time (I would say Thursday?) or find someone else to check it? So that I can attempt to ace my finals. Also, wouldn't that be a little over the line there, to claim "I can use the source because there are no good sources that claim this is a notable internet meme"? --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, but my claim is that "No scholarly research has been or appears likely in the forseeable future to be done on internet memes in general and that scholarly research is not the only thing that makes something notable." じん   ない  00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I am not going to say anything about that, and just leave it to see how the GAN reviewers interpret it. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you continue doing the review, obviously sidesteeping the source issue for the blog for the moment. I may not be able to respond right away though. じん   ない  22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can. I was wondering why you weren't responding though, but hey it's the holiday season. I'll continue to look at it later, but first I want to work on expanding an article first. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Enkaku Sousa
Are you sure about that page move? Every website that mentions the game refers to it's subtitle as "Sana e no 23 Hiai". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I did a little Google search. I see that a lot of the English websites are refering it as so. I am however pretty sure that no one in their sane mind would pronounce it as so unless for some reason furigana indicates otherwise (which in this case, at least in the logo), there is none. I'll take a further look into this.
 * Oh, by the way, as per WP:MOS-JA, long vowels should be romanized using macrons instead. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the game is currently for a Japan-only release, I'm more inclined to use the title given by the official website. If the title English media is using is nonsensical for a Japan-only release game, it's probably them unintentionally butchering the title, hence why using what the official site gives is probably more reliable. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: MemOff
I believe the fact that she's dead doesn't matter. If you're talking about something that occurred before the story began, it should be in the past tense, like if she's dead before MemOff or MemOff Pure began; if you're talking about something in the story that occurs after the story begins, it's in the present. You could get a second opinion from one of the projects though, or ask at WP:WAF.--  十  八  11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the problem, she is apparently dead in Memories Off, but only died in the end of/after (am not sure about this one) Pure. So, I wouldn't know if I should be saying, say, "She is Tomoya's childhood friend" or "she was". --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)