User talk:Goszei/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image File:Psychotherapy Research July 2017 cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Psychotherapy Research July 2017 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to New Game!, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please add templates with a summary that indicates why you believe the maintenance template applies in the future. You did not do so, so it is reasonable to remove it, especially after I took a look and found the sources were reasonable for what is presently on the page. Izno (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Izno, I appreciate you stepping in; as an administrator you should know a bit about these matters. I refer you to this edit summary, and to the note on the article talk page. If you think, BTW, those sources were reasonable, I wonder if you also like your articles larded with iTunes and Amazon links. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY allows for simple statements of fact, and I do not think it is out of ordinary to cite release dates for such. Do you disagree? Do you think they are being used for more than that allowance?
 * As for "proper" secondary sources, what qualifies to you? Anime News Network and SiliconEra are generally considered reliable in the topic area for which they are being cited and I see several citations to those sources. Izno (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do disagree. If almost half of the links are to the company that sells them, with links on where to buy them, we are well beyond a simple primary source. And the moment all those links are taken out, you have nothing but ANN and Crunchyroll left. At some point someone will realize that ANN is hardly selective in what it publishes, that it publishes on just about everything in the world of anime, and that therefore everything in anime is noteworthy courtesy of ANN--and what that means is that it is useless in helping establish notability, for instance. If only one reliable source can be found to publish on a given topic, like this series of picture books for young men (ahem), then one wonders how notable it is. But why aren't we having this conversation on the article talk page? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think all users of interest in this matter are willing to have that discussion on the article talk page, no problem. It would just be much appreciated if you stopped once people started complaining :^). I know you're fairly good natured about most things and the wiki isn't on fire with the current state of things.
 * Feel free to copy-paste any of the above comments of interest to the place of interest. Izno (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am fairly good-natured, and it would have been good-natured of you to apologize for accusing me of not providing a summary when I did. But then you just reinstated a bunch of spam links, so I can't help but wonder where you're really at in terms of our policies. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ... Man, a lot of me writing something up, deleting it, and deciding that someone else can have the last word in the past 72 hours. See you on the talk page (or maybe it's bedtime for me, I don't know). Izno (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Long-range dashes
Good catch on "long-range" at Boeing 747. I found one more, "one-third" was spelled with a dash. Kind of embarassing because I had already checked the article and thought I caught them all. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Template editor granted
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ping for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&page=User:Goszei rights log].


 * Useful links
 * All template-protected pages
 * User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
 * Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adjustments to title size in infoboxes
Are you planning to do this change for every infobox so that it displays better on mobile? It seems like it would be better to change the code at Template:Infobox or at some other central location. Have you asked about it at Template talk:Infobox? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been looking into how to deal with this issue, and I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed, actually. On desktop, the default above font-size of 125% is controlled by MediaWiki:Common.css (see line 368). A change to make it 125% on mobile could conceivably be implemented at MediaWiki:Mobile.css (see line 65, or so), but Izno told me that this was a bad idea (see the comment there for an explanation, it is ideally done with TStyles).


 * A change to make this happen centrally could also simply happen in Minerva itself (Github link), but this is also unlikely because that codebase is for all MediaWiki projects, and not just enwiki and its particular style and sizing conventions.


 * If there's another more simple path forward, and would be very open to looking into that. Overall, template styling is moving in a more decentralized direction (TemplateStyles), which makes consistency on points like this a little harder. — Goszei (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A comment in the latter file says to use templatestyles. I don't know if Template:Infobox/styles.css would be the right place, but something in one of those .css pages would presumably have the desired effect. When I look at a sample plain infobox in desktop and mobile, the title field on mobile renders too small and does not appear above the infobox as described in the documentation. I recommend starting a thread at Template talk:Infobox. It should not be difficult to fix it or to change the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion there, at Template talk:Infobox. — Goszei (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Hololive 1st fes Nonstop Story poster.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hololive 1st fes Nonstop Story poster.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanctions Alert
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Inspiration pages
Hi Goszei! Thanks for your support on Discord the other day for the idea of identifying companion good/featured articles for less-developed pages. I created Inspiration page to follow up on it, and I'll make a bot request to see if it's possible to get it populated on some pages. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tasha Beeds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bajan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Cities Templates
We might be able to reach a consensus, but I do think that all of these Largest Cities templates don't deserve to exist in the way they are currently formatted, used, etc... Substituting the information can be useful. But where should a general discussion about both the list and navboxes templates be? WikiProject Cities is deemed inactive. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I went to check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and found this discussion: Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17, which happens to be recent and about the very same topic (converting all of these templates into something). You should read that, as it looks like there is a lot of support around converting these into non-navboxes. I am not sure where a proper venue for that would be, maybe an RfC is needed. The fix might be as simple as just changing away from the "info" class, it appears: .— Goszei (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That user who posted that was not acting in good faith. He was launching personal attacks during that Tfd, but through my search among these largest cities templates, maybe it should be for countries only, not for provinces or districts. I'm all for an Rfc after the Tfd's I started are closed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: citation about Comic LO
Sandtalon (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

please explain
- what would the "default SD" be, and why not add it if you're removing the previous one? — Ched (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Ched, sorry about that, I was working with a larger set (Special:Diff/1028539450, the default dab SD just changed recently). This particular page doesn't use Template:Disambiguation like the other pages I was removing this from. Not sure if it should use that, or some other custom SD, or none at if it isn't needed (I will leave that to your discretion). — Goszei (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll think on it a bit. The one I imported from wikidata was a bit too long, so reverting wouldn't be right either.  TY for the prompt and polite reply. — Ched (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

SER Group definition
Thank You for Your support and reviewing SER Group definition. I have reacted today on Your, proper "orphan" signal and: a) Content Management Interoperability Services article contained already the info about SER Group, but there was not linkage, which I have added b) I have translated some infos from Wikpedia-de to Wikipedia-en, so in Bonn link appears as well right now info about SER Group and number of others Bonn-based companies c) I have added Doxis4 to the list List of collaborative software, where Doxis4 should be mentioned as it is mentioned by notable software reviewal companies like AIIM, Gartner and Forrester I hope that these actions (whereever the finish) are enough for now to remove "orphan" sign.

I would appreciate as well Your support with removing "for deletion" sign assigned by talk. I can not get a precise response from him what else needs to be done to remove the sign and I guess I should not be the one removing it. Can I count on Your support in here as I see above that You have already helped the others with this type of case? Akoszlajda (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Goszei For now there are 2-3 articles on Wikipedia EN linking to "SER Group" since couple of days. Please remove the "orphan" badge from the page SER Group or let me know what is missing. I would appreciate also at least Your vote on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SER Group page, where summary was provided to close also this topic and move forward. I am truely willing to share my knowledge objectively and thank You in advance for Your support ;' 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Problems in mobile rendering of mountain infoboxes?
Hello, Goszei. I see that you removed a whole bunch of formatting from Infobox mountain with. That formatting was designed to solve various problems over the years. I'd like to determine what was going wrong with the mobile display and fix it, instead of simply removing all of the formatting that is helping different cases on the desktop.

What was the problem that you saw on mobile? I'd like to reproduce it, or perhaps if you can share a screenshot? I can try to fix it with a minimal change to the previous formatting. Can you tell me more? Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Hike395 I have copied the previous revision to the template's sandbox, so a side-by-side can be viewed with the test cases (desktop and mobile). There are several abnormal features on mobile caused by the addition of padding, here is a sample of screenshots:.
 * Since the effect of the padding on desktop seems minimal, I removed it. I had tested some of the other features (the vertical aligns and the margins), but the effect on desktop is similarly minimal, but strange-looking on mobile. It seems best to keep the CSS as close to default as possible and minimize use of arbitrary padding to avoid strange displays on different systems, as is the case here. — Goszei (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored what I find is the minimal necessary CSS:
 * The 24.5em width is needed because mountain infoboxes tend to have some verbose data fields. Smaller margins tend to make vertically long infoboxes that then cause problems in article layout. On mobile, the 24.5em width is ignored.
 * The padding around the image and captions is useful to avoid crunching them together.
 * I also shrank the maximum and default image size because too large images make strange layouts / scrollbars in mobile mode. I wish I knew how to have different images sizes on mobile and on desktop.
 * I've looked at a bunch of different browsers/platforms. As far as I can tell, the crunching that you observed is now gone. (It was caused by setting line-height:normal). The padding and vertical alignment of labels and data don't seem to be needed any more (although I may be forgetting why we added those, since it has been so many years). — hike395 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Later: I'm thinking that the default line-height (1.5em) of the infobox looks too "loose" in mobile. What do you think of 1.3em? (now in the sandbox). — hike395 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Hike395 I don't see a problem with the default value myself, but if you wish to change the line-height I think that 1.3 is too tight. I would say that 1.4 is the floor.
 * User:Hike395 Note: Actually, the default line-height on mobile is 1.65 (it is 1.5 on desktop, like you said). Maybe just line-height:1.5em is the solution then (to tighten mobile while avoiding an effect on desktop). — Goszei (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Now in the sandbox. I slightly prefer 1.4, but since 1.5 is the default on the desktop, uniformity should probably trump my preference. 1.5 is definitely better than 1.65 on mobile (to my eye). — hike395 (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Important notice
(no worries at all; I'm currently sending these to as many formally "unaware" people editing in the area as possible, because if a discussion at WP:AE is ever needed, a prior lack of such notifications can be very frustrating.)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ZUN's age at creation date of Highly Responsive to Prayers (re Touhou Project)
Hey, I was looking into the sourcing behind the claim ZUN was 17 & that it was 1995 when he began developing Highly Responsive to Prayers, which you apparently introduced here. If it started in 1995 I suppose it's technically possible for ZUN to be 17 at the time, but no ref in the article seems to back that specific age. And even wrt the 1995 date I'm unsure of the reference quality -- the th1_09pmd.txt source tells us ZUN composed a specific track used in HRtP in 1995 but doesn't seem to verify HRtP itself began development then. If you remember at all, could you shed some light on what your thinking was/ sources used at the time? I'm curious if there's any sourcing I'm overlooking, but so far no luck verifying. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Found support for 1995 date in ZUN post from 2002 and USGamer article; removed 17yr-old age claim for now, interested to hear if you remember what lead you to that but it's not that important. Have a good one! —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello User:0xF8E8, I'm afraid that I don't remember where I heard those pieces of info, though I'm glad to see the article gain more citations. — Goszei (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Athlete Ethnicity Parameter
Can you add it please. I opened a talk on it as well. Direct link at the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_sportsperson Leyncho (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Script for this?
Tnx for. Is there a script I could run for this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Piotrus, you can run the script by enabling the Citation expander gadget in Preferences. It uses the same Toolforge server as the one behind User:Citation bot (which is often occupied with other users' jobs), so it can take several tries to get the script to return a diff, but the results are usually pretty good. I like using the gadget instead of the bot interface since I can examine the edit before I submit it. — Goszei (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cameron Cartee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cameron Cartee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cameron Cartee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Font sizes
Please stop making changes to font sizes in infoboxes. I'm pretty sure I've asked you before to stop, but I'm leaving a note on your talk page directly this time. It's disruptive to have to deal with custom font sizes which may or may not differ from the values in Common.css. As I think I've said before, if you want to fix the issue permanently, you can help with MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do. IznoPublic (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lolicon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lolicon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Psiĥedelisto -- Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of category?
Hello. I am a regular contributor to the Free! anime wiki. Years ago, the wiki page was established as Anime. Then, a few years ago, someone with a few insider friends changed it to TV series. I tried, unsuccessfully, to revert that change and so the incorrect and misleading category stands to this day. I believe this is an egregious error, particularly since the Anime and Manga portal has been re-established. Free! has been an anime since 2013 with multiple seasons and several films, with a current one playing and another in production. I feel that if try to revert the category again, I will (again) be silenced by others with more supporters of the incorrect category who have sought to change over all television anime to TV series. Can you help in this regard? Ouranista (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lolicon
The article Lolicon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lolicon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Psiĥedelisto -- Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review of Lolicon — may I?
Hey Goszei. We've always had pleasant encounters, but I wanted to ask you before I agree to review your GA nomination of lolicon if you're fine with that. You might not want me personally as the reviewer. The reason I'm interested in doing the review is that I've had to read up on the scholarly information on the topic because one of the reasons 8kun is in turmoil is that one of its high level staff, Mark Mann, quit because Jim Watkins banned lolicon from the site in 2020. I am working on an opinion piece by the end of the year (because that's how long I'll need to think about this) about why lolicon being banned was the straw that broke the camel's back with the majority of their ex-4chan /v/ audience—not the Watkins' acceptance of QAnon, which they equally hated, not the frequent server issues, not the grifts run by Watkins on 8kun's users to promote all sorts of products with dubious health claims, but a lolicon ban. If you have an article that you think is GA-ready, I would like to help you get it there. Feel free to say no, you might not want a furry doing your GA review on this topic. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Psiĥedelisto, it would be an honor for you review the article, and I gladly accept your offer. I'm encouraged to hear that you are familiar with some of the scholarship going in, especially considering this is such a tricky and fraught topic. My goal here was to get the article on this important (and somewhat overlooked subject) to the wonderful quality levels achieved by User:Morgan695 in recent months at Yaoi, Yuri (genre), and Bara (genre); I think the article is now just about GA-ready, so feel free to start whenever you are ready. — Goszei (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I finally submitted my initial review. I am sorry that is so many words, but please don't get discouraged because most of the words are just easily completed recommendations on the article text, or explanations for why I am passing the article on a certain possibly contentious criteria like №5 or №6. While I was writing the review I decided that it's in the article's best interest that I exhaustively explain my justifications for everything that I'm doing because it already has seen GA Reassessment twice and is likely going to be one of the most controversial articles to ever be listed as a Good Article (assuming you have time to collaborate on the remaining small issues before the GA week runs out but I have no reason to think you won't). I want to make sure that editors know, if they are considering opening yet another reassessment, that I went over every criteria very carefully and only passed it after an extreme amount of due diligence and care. I don't want you to take the length of my review as a comment that it is not close to GA, it is indeed close. 😊 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lolicon
The article Lolicon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lolicon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Psi?edelisto -- Psi?edelisto (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanessa butterfly
Fyi, Vanessa is Greek for butterfly. Johnathan Swift was the first to use it as a woman's name, but it meant butterfly for centuries previously. Please change this speculation on the Vanessa butterfly Wiki page. 96.44.123.104 (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with how pagination works before changing citations to page numbers
I just reverted your edits to liability insurance on 15 February 2021. If you had taken a few minutes to read up on book pagination, you would realize that looseleaf services often use hyphenated page numbers, where the first number is the chapter number and the second number is the page number within the chapter. This kind of pagination has been commonplace for over 50 years. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Productions Tables
Hi Goszei,

I really don't think the changes you recently made to several Anime Studio wiki's were needed -- Specifically with how you simplified the tables listing their works. It's much easier to edit and maintain them when they're ordered solely by their start date, the tables look terrible and cluttered when you try and include their start and end years in the same column. Listing their full start and end dates is useful information and I really don't think it was necessary to remove that, especially in the manner you went about it.

Preferably I'd like to revert those changes, specifically for the Bones and MAPPA pages as they're the only ones I actively edit. I'm aware it probably took you a fair bit of time to make those edits, and I'm sorry to ask for their reversion, but I hope we can come to an understanding about this.

Thanks,

WtBorp (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, WtBorp. I myself have gone between including and excluding the full start and end dates at various studio articles over the past few months (experimenting at the Shaft and Kyoto Animation articles, in particular), and I've come to the personal conclusion that full dates fall on the side of information that should be kept to the series articles themselves and "year timelines" (like at 2021 in anime). I think that this configuration is the one that best matches with the levels of information that is relevant/readers are expecting to see at those article types, without becoming excessive or cluttered. Perhaps there are better ways to implement what I wanted, but those are my general thoughts.
 * I understand that the appropriate levels of detail for various article types is a subjective matter, and I think it may be best for you to start a topic at the WikiProject talk so a broader consensus can be a reached and/or a style standard can be developed (as far as I know it has never been discussed there). — Goszei (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Harmonia
re:move But Harmonia dosn't have even one choice, unlike Clannad Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's true, and the whole area is sort of a grey one, as I and HumanBodyPiloter5 pointed in our comments on the Clannad RM. VN's with a low number of choices, or without choices at all like Harmonia, are an even more grey area, but since several major pages had already been moved, I decided to go ahead and finish the job with the rest of the pages with the "visual novel" disambiguation for consistency purposes. Maybe a discussion at WT:VG about this particular topic would be helpful to reach consensus, but I suspect the result would be that editors would choose to deprecate the disambiguation despite the edge cases, as some hinted at in the Clannad RM. — Goszei (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nigerian National Assembly delegation from Benue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fresh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Orhpan Links
Hi Goszei, I hope you are well! Thank you for the recent edits to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Henson_(photographer) - I was hoping you could help me with what exactly is needed to introduce links from related articles. I actually thought I already did that, but think I misunderstood. Any assistance is sincerely appreciated. All the best! Falconik123 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2021 (BST)
 * Hello Falconik123, an article becomes de-orphaned when other articles have links to it. I looked at the page history and saw that you added more links within the article itself; this is good too, but I believe you misunderstood. It is also possible that you added links to this article on other articles which were later removed. — Goszei (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! So, is an orphaned article a bad thing? Does it mean it will be removed? As for the links, should I go to other articles that are similar to it, and then link them to it? For example, would I link English landscape photographer somewhere to Martin Henson (photographer) ? Sorry, this part confuses me. I noticed at the bottom left under Languages there is "Add links" - is this anything to do with the links? Falconik123 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2021 (BST)
 * It's not necessarily a bad thing (there are a lot of orphaned articles). The tag will go invisible on the article in two months, and it will remain in the maintenance category. An example of de-orphaning would be adding links to the Martin Henson page on the List of photographers and Henson (name) pages. The "Add links" on the sidebar has to do with connecting this article to versions of it in other languages, so it is unrelated. — Goszei (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Italic title creating excess whitespace
Hello, please note that Italic title should be placed directly beneath Short description as described in its documentation. Moving it from there creates an extra whitespace. I've fixed your edit to Hāfu that inadvertently broke this. Thanks! 93 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)