User talk:Town of Cats/Archive 5

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)
I've about done with the copyedit you asked for to List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1). I'll probably take another quick look through in a day or so, just see if there's any tweaking needed, but basically it's there. Better luck with your next FLC nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks so much for your help! I'll probably renominate it for FLC on the 1st of February. Would you like me to notify you when I do so? N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do. I'll watch it and offer any further help I can during the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz
I'm afraid that there was a discussion held that ruled VGChartz was unreliable as a source for sales information. Heck, it states that it's a "projection tool". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a while back, but it resulted in this: - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA/N
I really have to suggest you withdraw the GA nomination. The development section is really lacking, and is more like a release section. There's probably a lot of information that can fill it with even more. Also, it has a lot of short sentences. We should work on it for a couple days before we try. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a couple of beliefs. First, I did extensive research; there are no interviews or any information on the development of this game and I don't believe further sources can be found. In addition, I don't see short sentences being an issue; as long as the prose is grammatically correct, it passes criteria 1 of WP:GACR. Finally, as Good Articles are rarely rated quickly, if we need to add information, we can do so before the page is actually reviewed. N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Darker than black
Hi there, the section in question is not related to plot per se rather the terminology used within the show. It is impossible to fully understand the article without it. I came to wikipedia specifically looking for this information. Compare this mere section to say the Lord Of The Rings article. Every piece of terminology used in it has it's own freaking article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.210.41 (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll ask WP:ANIME for their opinions. Thanks. N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender
Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney
You might want to indicate at WP:GAN that you are reviewing Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney. I had marked that I planned to review it and was about to do so, but then saw you had already reviewed it. You just might want to mention it on the page so as to avoid that potential misunderstanding in the future.

Thanks!

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NocturneNoir actually wrote Ace Attorney, so there might be some misunderstanding there. He would love a review though :) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as NuclearWarfare said, I was a contributor to the article. is the one actually reviewing it, so you might want to pop him a message.  N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 17:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstandings. There is a review tag at the site now, so I think it's all taken care of. :) --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks and sorry for the trouble! N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

"Spoiler warnings"
Hi I just saw your message. About the changes: Well, that's what I think about it. I do not know if such alteration should first be put on vote or something, or approved by an admin. If that's the case I would like some advice. And, by the way, thank you for the feedback.
 * I do not know about this policy, thanks to point that to me
 * My alterations where not "spoiler warnings", but just a way to turn the viewing of such information optional.
 * After careful reading of the text you send to me, I do not see any conflict between my alterations and that particular text. In fact, I think that the "final diagnosis" could be very well in the "plot" section, not in the resumed list. I do not see why should it be so visible in the first place
 * And last but not least, "when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.". Does that minor spoiler right on the main episode list (where everybody can see it on a glimpse) serves that purpose?

Best regards

Ruivo

Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You convinced me. I'll remove the hide button.Reading that votation, it just upsets me that such an important decision is taken by such small number of people, in such a small timeframe. I think this is one of the majors shortcomings of Wikipedia. I will remove the hide button from the infobox as well. Maybe I start a thread about this topic (final diagnosis in infobox) later, but now I'm so frustrated to do so... Anyway, thank you for the tip. Would be far worse if people just though that I was doing this despite the previous rulling.Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, but I dont think that will be necessary. As was written in the votation page, incorporating the final diagnosis into the plot detail would make it even harder to avoid (and is still a "trade off"). About the show itself, we always know that the final diagnosis will only be found in the last ten minutes anyway :-) Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it again, you are right, that's the consensus. I was the one that got it wrong. BTW, what do you think to put it on vote again, but this time with a broader discussion?Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be glad if you can start this new discussion, because, to be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Besides, my english is not that good. I'll try to keep track of it, but please warn me on my discution page if you start the new thread...Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I do not think that their removal is the best solution. Although I disagree with the current policy on spoilers, I think the current community consensus should be enforced. Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's whas more or less what I was trying to say. I should have written in the comment above that I dont think that just their removal is the best solution. Thanks again.Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Show/Hide Spoiler" votation
Hi NocturneNoir

I just had an idea: what if we could put a warning on the episode list about the votation? I think this way more and more people that have something to do with it could vote. Do you think that's possible? Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney
Hi! Congratulations on recently getting a successful GA review for Ace Attorney. I noticed on the video game wikiproject's assessment requests page you suggested that Ace Attorney could potentially be an A-class article. We're discussing our project's A-class review process on the project's talk page. Maybe Ace Attorney could be kind of a test run for us? If you think it's worthy of A-class, start a discussion on its talk page and let the rest of us know. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually have absolutely no clue as to what qualifies as an A-class article, so I do not feel comfortable nominating it for something it has no chance of achieving. I will happily nominate it if you think it is a viable A-class, but I would not nominate it without some kind of confirmation that A-class is possible because it would be a time consuming process for both me and the WP:VG project's reviewers. N OCTURNE N OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find the universal criteria for A-class here. I personally think it could be an A-class with just a little work, but that's just me.  Ultimately it's got to be up to an involved editor, in this case you.  If you think it's ready for A, go ahead and nominate it, otherwise no sweat. —    Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   08:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply don't have the time as of right now to pursue an A-class as of right now. I would definitely be interested in pursuing this later, in a month or so, but unfortunately, not right now. Thanks for the offer though! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
This list has been promoted to FL status, but could you find somebody new to proofread the text? I've no time to do it myself. That was my primary concern at the FLC. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so it was. I will ask around again, but most people seem a bit too busy, like you. Do you have anybody you can suggest? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRV for a list of capable copy-editors (User:Scartol is good, but I would imagine he's in high demand). Congrats on the FL, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have queried him here. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 04:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, I am indeed in very high demand, both on-wiki and off. If you haven't found someone else by the Ides of March, give me another holler. For now, though, I must beg forgiveness. Scartol  •  Tok  12:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Script-assisted whitespace removal"
I suggest reevaluating the usefulness of this part of whatever script you may be using, in light of this edit you made to Eureka Seven. Whitespace should not be removed unless it visibly affects the output page layout, such as multiple line breaks in a row. It is often employed to make the parameters of certain templates, such as infoboxes, align at the equals signs; removing it introduces a readability problem, in my opinion. In addition, the script changed the sortkey for Category:Eureka Seven from a space to the page name; per WP:CAT, using a space for the sortkey is the preferred way to sort a page in a category of the same name (bullet list, #6). (What script is it, by the way? I don't use them myself, but I'd like to know where to complain.)  —tan³ tx 21:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's odd. Doesn't tend to make mistakes, but since you've reverted, I'll be more careful next time. In my monobook, you can see the script as User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js. You can probably reach the creator of the script at User talk:Plastikspork. Cheers, and sorry for the trouble! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up, I've noticed this as well on various chapter/episode lists but never bothered to do anything about it, since ultimately the whitespace being there or not is rather trivial (even if it does improve source navigation), and you usually make other cleanup edits at the same time. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So should I stop? I personally was doing minor cleanup, and the scripts were kind of "add-ons," if you will, to my edits. If they are being disruptive or unhelpful, I will refrain from running them. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to stop, but if you're leery of that particular script, might I suggest one that I use? I'm not sure it covers everything the one you use does, but it's still pretty decent (it does detect different problems between IE and FF, mostly related to whitespace at the ends of lines, but that's pretty minor). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually already use that script (see my monobook), and it doesn't cover everything I use it for, but I'll try to avoid the WS/COLOR functionality of Spork's script in the future. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

16 article hook DYK
Shubinator (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)




 * Thank you! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Crunchyroll
Dear Sir/Madam:

I am wondering what is the best way to provide information regarding titles and corporate partners of Crunchyroll on our page (i.e. youtube, TV Tokyo, etc. have pages that list items)...does it have to be on the page itself or can we link it to a hosted page on the Crunchyroll site-the intention is purely informational and not promotional. I was hoping to obtain your guidance since you nominated the Crunchyroll Partners and Crunchyroll Online Catalog page removal. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I would like to comply with Wikipedia rules and regulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasewang (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To tell the truth, there is simply no way to do this if you wish to follow Wikipedia rules and regulations. First, you should not be editing pages that have anything to do with anime or manga in the first place; you have a conflict of interest and really should avoid editing anything that is related to Crunchyroll altogether. There really isn't any way for you to add information about Crunchyroll to Wikipedia yourself, considering it would inherently be advertising.
 * Additionally, I really don't see how or why a list of that material would remain on Wikipedia. I couldn't find TV Tokyo Partners or Youtube Partners, so I don't know what you mean by them having "pages that list items.
 * In any event, your best bet, which isn't really an option for you in the first place due to WP:COI, would be to add them to the external link section of Crunchyroll. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.theanimereview.com/reviews/onepiece.html
Hi. I just noticed that you added this website as a reference to List of One Piece episodes (season 5). I'm worried about its reliability. As far as I can see, the site's sole reviewer is just a very enthusiastic fan. Am I missing something? -- Goodraise (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a mistake I made in my haste. It looked like a reliable source on a first glance, and I didn't delve that deep into the site. You are correct in removing it, as a second glance has revealed no reliability in it. Sorry for the trouble. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You offered your help some time ago. Could you take a look at the list again? I'd like to hear your opinion before I run off to FLC. Thanks, -- Goodraise (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this page is on my watchlist, I've been watching your changes... I can't believe I made that many errors, but anyway... Couple of minor things to fix:
 * The season initially ran from November 3, 2002 through February 2, 2003 on Fuji TV in Japan, where every episode made the Top 10 of Video Research's weekly anime ranking with ratings, ranging from 10.7 to 14.3. Split this and then explain what "Top 10 of Video Research's weekly anime ranking with ratings" is. Is it a notable award?
 * Better now? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every episode made the Top 10 in the weekly ranking of anime shows that the audience measurement company Video Research bases on their ratings. You explain the company's ranking system, but I still don't see why the ranking is important at all. Further, the sentence has become more convoluted. Try "Video Research, a company that rates anime shows based on audience measurement, ranked every episode within the Top 10 anime shows." or something of the sort.  ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Episode 139—alongside episodes of Kochikame and Sazae-san—aired as part of a television special,[3] which received a rating of 16.2 and ranked 1st. I wouldn't personally wikilink the episode. Additionally, try rewording to "Episode 139 aired as part of a television special alongside episodes of Kochikame and Sazae-san and received a rating of 16.2, ranking 1st." or something. The ratings and the rankings are confusing, and I'm not sure they are necessary.
 * I delinked the episode, but I'm uncertain how to reword it. Your example gives the rating to the episode, but it's the special that received it. As for whether they are necessary: An article about a movie should mention how many watched it. Isn't this analogous? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar concern as above (in terms of the ranking's importance). I don't have an answer to your question either; I would personally prefer the actual viewership instead of a confusing rating. It's unclear what the rating is out of, or what the highest possible rating is, or what a good rating is considered to be, so the rating confuses me greatly. As a reword, try "Episode 139 aired as part of a television special alongside episodes of Kochikame and Sazae-san. The special received a rating of 16.2, ranking 1st." ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess you're right. I had to add the references, so I thought I could just as well make use of them by adding the ratings, but they're not really adding that much to the list. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More comments later when I get a chance. Sorry for the delay... ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more comments...
 * The following three episodes are called "Shutsugeki! Zenii Kaizoku Dan" (出撃!ゼニィ海賊団?, lit. "Sortie! Zenii Pirates"). I'd replace "following" with "next".
 * Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the last five episodes make up the "Niji no Kanata e" (虹の彼方へ?, lit. "To the Other Side of the Rainbow") story line. is not a sentence due to the "And". Either add it on to the previous sentence or just remove it altogether.
 * Removed it. I never knew that starting a sentence with a conjunction was widely considered incorrect in English. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Something about independent and dependent clauses, I'd imagine. It just sounds wrong to my ear though, so it's possible that your grammar was perfectly fine there. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While you have information about the arcs, you don't summarize the season's storyline as a whole. A reader unfamiliar with One Piece will have little idea what you are talking about (though such readers are unlikely to access the page in the first place, but that's irrelevant).
 * Better now? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I just discovered that lists like List of Bleach episodes (season 4) assume that the reader is familiar with the anime. I personally disagree and think more information should be given, but as consensus (and previous FLs stand), it should be fine now. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't use previous featured lists that way. The standards are constantly rising and how rigidly they are enforced also depends on who reviews the FLCs (and those reviewer's knowledge of specific manuals of style, like WP:MOS-JP). As long as your list is worse than the most recent FLs, you'll have to expect opposition. If your list is better, reviewers will just try so much harder to find something wrong, causing standards to rise again. Having taken just a quick glance at that list, I found several MOS violations, but I don't see it providing insufficient context. Mind you that wikilinks can be used instead of explanations. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my original point was that there simply isn't any background information about the main characters. For instance, the Bleach list references "his allies", who are incredibly important, but aren't mentioned at all until later episode summaries. Similarly, for List of One Piece episodes (season 5), very little information is given about the Pirates. There's no information introducing the series prior to The first five episodes, each following their own plots, form the "Dreams!" (ドリームス! ?) arc. My point about previous FLCs was that I believe it can be safely assumed that the reader knows enough about One Piece if they're specifically going to the Season 5 page instead of List of One Piece episodes, so I'm not entirely sure if the context is at all necessary. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it is necessary. It is even a B-class requirement. Every page in mainspace should be written under the assumption that the reader came there by using the "Random article"-button. However, wikilinking is enough. I don't need to explain that One Piece is an anime adaptation of a Japanese shounen manga series. I don't have to explain what a manga is and I don't have to explain what an anime is. I can easily drive this argument ad absurdum. What is required, is giving the reader the means to get the information they need. To pick up an example from your last FLC: Quoting "goddess" and simply using it is a dead end for the uninformed reader. They would have to watch the episode (because that's where the quote is from) to understand the summary. That defeats the purpose of the list. I had a hard time with this myself when writing List of One Piece episodes (season 9). I ended up with a whole paragraph for the sole purpose of introducing all the items and characters I couldn't wikilink. (Serves me right for merging the countless character articles into List of One Piece characters. xD) -- Goodraise (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If her "goddess" status is explained on List of Speed Grapher characters, would this be sufficient? Dumping this all in the episode list seems a bit excessive. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 11:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be enough for accessibility, but I'd consider it bad style (for a featured list). After all, it's the episode the character is introduced. The episode is just bound to give as much information about her as is intended for the viewer to know. It'd be a different story if it was a "(season 2)" episode list and she used powers that were explained during season 1. - Though, I'm not sure this is really about that "goddess"-status. The real question may be: What does the viewer actually see? I don't know the series, so I'll just make up a few examples that would be better than just saying 'their "goddess"': 'a sickly young woman they revere as their "goddess"', 'a school girl transformed into a demonic monstrosity they call their "goddess"', or 'an abused and broken girl they exploit to fulfill their dreams they call "goddess"'. At the end of the episode, what does the viewer actually know about her? If the only thing the viewer knows is that that group of people calls her their "goddess", then that's alright, but make that clear in the summary. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it wasn't aired on Fox Box? The Fox Box article claims it was aired on Fox Box.
 * No, I'm not. Fox Box didn't air where I live and if it had, I wouldn't have watched it. As for the Fox Box article: I don't trust articles. If anything, I trust reliable sources, and that article gives none. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't remember if it was ever on Fox Box, so you're right to require reliable sources. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 4Kids dub uses an original piece of music as both opening and ending theme with the opening featuring a rap performed by Russell Velasquez. is awkwardly worded. Try "The 4Kids dub uses original pieces of music for both the opening and ending theme. The opening features a rap performed by Russell Velasquez."
 * The only difference is that rap. Does that make them different pieces of music? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, does the opening theme just have an additional rap portion to it? If so, the sentence needs to be split so the fact that the song is the same can be made clearer. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right. The ending seems to be an instrumental version of the opening. I just didn't know how to say that without knowing the song's name. (It doesn't appear to have an official name.) -- Goodraise (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Urgh, my mistake again... Just split the sentences so it becomes clearer: "The 4Kids dub uses an original piece of music as both opening and ending theme. The opening features a rap performed by Russell Velasquez." If you can source it, add "the ending is an instrumental version of the opening." but otherwise, leave it. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done that. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than that, it's ready for FLC as far as I can see (which, according to my recent FLCs, isn't really that far). Good luck! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier. I got carried away with working on another list. I also needed to get away from the episode list for a while. Doing so provides one with a somewhat more objective perspective on one's own work, which can sometimes prevent quickshot FLC nominations. :) BTW, thanks for having taken the time to review. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do need to stop working on episode lists too. That's why I've begun to work on DYKs. Hopefully, I'll also be able to help out at WP:CM, where I've promised an FA or two... Anime FAs are really far too hard to get to, sadly. The sourcing for Development is near impossible if DVDs can't be obtained. And no problem on the reviews; I really should be the one thanking you for the reviews to both Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess! episodes and Featured list candidates/List of Speed Grapher episodes. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You go around promising featured articles? Good luck. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, I realized my own idiocy after I did the promising, but it is hopefully doable... Thanks for the luck, I'll need it. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Renominated
I've just renominated it: Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)/archive2. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
Okay, if there's still no rush to copyedit, then I can put it on my list. I may not get to it for a week or two, since it's nearly the end of the term at school. But if it can wait a little longer, I should be able to get to it eventually. Scartol •  Tok  14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Girl Friend (manga)
Since WP:Babel userboxes on your page show that you are proficient in French, I would like you to read and summarise the reception section of Girl Friend (manga) with the French reviews on its talk page. Extremepro (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on my to-do list. How urgently do you need this finished? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 13:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very. Take your time. Thanks for accepting this task. Extremepro (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just began looking into these reviews today and came upon a bit of an issue. All of the reviews except for this one have the reviewers using usernames (and not their real names). It is for this reason that I question the reliability of these reviews; can they be used? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If the reviews are user-edited and not peer reviewed I don't think they pass WP:RS. 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremepro (talk • contribs)


 * In that case, there is only one review. Do you still wish for me to summarize it in the reception section? I thought it was kind of odd that there was only one negative review, but as it turns out, it's the only one with a real name attached to it. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the reception section and put the review in a new paragraph under the lead.Extremepro (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. If you ever need more help, don't hesitate to ask. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Move category please
Hi there i created a new category: Category:British Sylhetis, but I made a mistake because Sylhetis are not entirely an ethnic group but are Bengali, so it would make more sense if it was changed to Category:British Bangladeshis of Sylheti origin. please if you could make this change then it would be great thankyu. DinajGao (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how to move categories. You may wish to ask on Requested moves or contact an administrator. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 14:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, it may just be easier to create a new category (the one that you want) and then to recategorize all the pages in Category:British Sylhetis, and delete Category:British Sylhetis after it is emptied. That should suffice, yes? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes if you can delete it and I can re-create then it would be great! DinajGao (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin; I cannot delete it. Why would you need to recreate it? You can just modify its contents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your problem? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Chopin article renames
You ask a question at Talk:Études (Chopin) and you don't even wait for a reply? Why did you ask? These pages are probably going to be moved back. What do you think is so offensive with having "(Chopin)" in the name anyways? DavidRF (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... perhaps I'm confused by this edit which appears to be signed by you, but doesn't appear to have originated from your account.  Still, I'm going to push to rename the Chopin articles back.  A name like "Etude, Op. 25, No. 1" is simply too generic sounding.DavidRF (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded on Talk:Études (Chopin). By the way, I follow WP:BRD, so feel free to revert. If I'm wholly incorrect, you might want to revert the moves. My prescedent is a move by the admin, . I happen to agree with Fram's move in this case, as it is line with naming procedures. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 14:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)