User talk:AnmaFinotera

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. Comments from harassing editors or wikistalkers will also be summarily removed without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Are you here about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?
• Why did you change the reflist tag in an article to the references one, or visa versa?
• What do you mean you're "wikibonked"?

Himura Kenshin and other stuff

I added to the main Rurouni Kenshin article videogames and soundtracks info, so I guess some merges could be done. Also, did something happened with the copyeditor that was supposed to help in Himura Kenshin? I remembered he copyedited conception and lead. Well, regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Been wondering that myself. She never finished copyediting Wolf's Rain either, and I finally just dropped its GA nom (the person who put it on hold for GA review also disappeared). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But are you going to nominate it again? And what about the merge of the soundtracks and the videogames?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm finishing up the merges now. Probably not on Wolf's Rain, at least not anytime soon. I'm going to wait until I've been able to clean up the character and episode lists, and can fix up the character section more, before trying again. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think somebody may give a little copy edit hand to the Sagara Sanosuke, if I ask that in the Wiki project?Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Someone somewhere mentioned a new resource for finding copyeditors...let me see if I can find it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So?Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Fullmetal Alchemist is ready for a peer review? If so, could you create it?Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be, but what goal should I note? GA or straight to FA? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant deal to make a FA due to my English, GA would be easier.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to go for GA or FA, it would need a copy edit. I'll post the peer review. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Collectian, I need advice, Im making the list of Dragon Ball manga chapters here but there is a problems. In Japan the volumes were published as 42 volumes called Dragon Ball, while Viz Media released the series in a different way. They released the first 16 vols with the name of Dragon Ball and the volumes 17-42 were titled Dragon Ball Z, starting since one. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would recommend just noting the change in title in the lead. Could possibly break the section list into two subsections. Does the story actually change significantly at volume 17? And sourced reasons for why Viz added the Z to the name? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, its not very different, in fact volume 17 ends with the story arc of volume 16. I dont know why Viz changed the titles, but they did according to the sources of my sandbox, (check English sources in my box).--Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If its not different, then a mention in the lead is all that's needed. :) From what I read on ANN, it looks like Viz renamed it because the Dragon Ball Z anime starts with the events in the 17th volume. The Shonen Jump page for DBZ confirms this[1]. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So should I make subsection 1-16 and another 1-26?--Tintor2 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...probably, yes. Since the division will be the more well known amongst English readers, do one subsection for Dragon Ball and one for Dragon Ball Z, then note the reason for the rename in the lead. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice^_^, are you going to redirect the Dragon Ball Sagas? I remember some kind of conversationTintor2 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Sagas? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of these.Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, these episode lists are such a mess! I may have ended up doing some double redirects. You might want to go behind and check to make sure they are right, since I don't watch the series. Some may also be off due the screwed up episode list structures. List of Dragon Ball episodes is not an actual episode list at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I think to continue with Myojin Yahiko, since tomorrow. Next time I ll ask copyedit before nominating.Tintor2 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) At this rate, we might even end up with an RK featured topic before its over with ;) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here its an old version of the list of characters of the Rurouni Kenshin characters. I deleted the the one-episode characters, but it stil needs a big clean up. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty long :P I think the organization might need a little work, and probably some more of the characters can come out, but certainly a good start. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete any character.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

From the sandbox I mean, I cant think what character to delete so I ll leave that to you (maybe some minor like gensai and those two girls from the anime?)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to go through it later to see which ones can come out. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

Thought you would like to know since you update quite a few assessments and since it is not clear where start class ends and B class begins:) — there is a proposal for a new C-Class assessment at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Ratification vote on C-Class. — G.A.S 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Start has always been the broadest class, but not sure I support the idea of a C class either. Do think they need to put the word out to a much broader range of people, at the least notifying all projects since we're the ones you get to deal with most of the actual assessing and would have to update our guidelines accordingly. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

I heard that you were the one who redirected Blue Dragon (TV series) back to the video game page from Sesshomaru. Like I mentioned that if there are more anime-exclusive characters showing up on the video game page, then it would get overcrowded. Don't you think that should be separated like they did for Mega Man Star Force. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:34, 4 Jne 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, however the Blue Dragon (TV series) was not an appropriately named or formed article. It wasn't even a real attempt at making such an actual series article for the anime at all[2]. Is the anime series based on the game itself, or on the Blue Dragon: Secret Trick or Blue Dragon Ral Grad manga series?-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire series since the second Blue Dragon anime seems to take place after the defeat of Nene. I think we need to improve on that article. Especially with it's anime exclusive characters like Bouquet and Logi. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, I'm just trying to figure out how it should be done. If the anime is based on one or both manga, it should be there, similar to Star Ocean: The Second Story (manga), but if it is based on the game, it would be its own article, Blue Dragon (anime). Did some quick searching, and it looks like it is based off the game, and that is has a sequel Blue Dragon: Tenkai no Shichi Ryū. The Blue Dragon anime is said to be "loosely related" to the Blue Dragon Ral Grad manga, but neither seems to be based off the other. So, my inclination would be that it should have a separate article to cover it and its sequel (and the sequel's manga). However, I think it might also be good to ask in the Anime and Manga project before going forward, as some folks there might have a clearer idea of the relationship between the manga and anime adaptations to help determine who goes where. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do I find the Anime and Manga project? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have placed it under the project. Do you think it should've been labeled anime or TV series if it's page is restored? Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You added it to the project page, which was not correct. I meant leave a message on the talk page of the project asking about it. I'll go ahead and post one though. If created, it should be labeled anime, per our current naming conventions. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When it's file is restored, let me know. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The file will not be restored, either way. A new article would be made, properly following the Anime and manga MoS and with more than just a chunk of plot summary :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xena?

Sections as Personal Life, Skills and Powers and Lesbian subtext were withdrawn, why? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

They are not appropriate sections for an article. The first two are excessive plot summary, which violates WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and the TV MoS. I believe the Lesbian subtext was merged into Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture as it is series wide rather than character specific. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The section Character History could be divided into two, then mix Xena Dark Past and her new life. It could be divided into sectionsEarly HistoryandThe New Lifeas had been done before? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

That is not necessary, at all. The character history is already too long. It should NOT be a huge plot summary. The in-universe history of the character should not be the central focus of the article, but the real world aspects. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xena: Warrior Princess had 134 episodes, just count on the page, or look at any website. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

I know how many episodes it has. That isn't an excuse for excessive plot details about the character. Himura Kenshin is a GA character article for a character from a 28 volume book series and a 95 episode anime series. Note the emphasis on the real-world aspects, not plot and in-universe details. Rukia Kuchiki is another GA character article, from a 33+ volume book series and a 173 episode television series. Again, far less plot details than the Xena article (indeed, the whole article is smaller than Xena), with an emphasis on the real world aspects such as conception and creation of the character, reception of the character, and any plot details written from an out-of-universe perspective. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your delisting of Jump Square

I believe that you are the one who needs to review the GA process as your undiscussed delisting appears to contradict the process. Please see guideline #4 here which states that you need to allow time for the editors to respond. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, when an article very clearly fails GA and was inappropriately passed, a quick delist is allowed, especially if the issues can not be fixed quickly. This has been confirmed before (see the talk page, discussion is still there). The sweeps task force, in fact, also delists the same way for blatantly non-GA articles like this. I am extremely familiar with GA, thanks, and your passing of this article was beyond wrong. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Collectonian! To be honest, I don't think it should have gotton a GA rating, the referencs are totally my bad. But I don't think it should be Start class... but that's just me! I'm cool with it ^_^. Anyway thanks for coming to help on the page. I would need some help right about now.

P.S. I will get some references on the JC SQ. Comics section, I can actually get references everywhere... easily! Well, maybe a few sections have hard to find references, but it's all good. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi and glad to know you agree that it shouldn't have gotten GA. Unfortunately, there is a huge range of stuff in Start class (they are talking about making a C class to go between start and B). Its not quite B class do to the organization issues and lack of references. As more clean up is done, it should be relatively easy to get it to B. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave JC SQ. some references. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. You may want to take a look at some other magazine articles as well, to get ideas on content and formatting. I know there is a basic MoS as well, but darned if I can remember where it is at the moment. I used it as a guide in redoing and structuring Shojo Beat though. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow you did a great job on the page! It's pretty much flawless, are you trying to get it to a GA? The reason I want to make Jump SQ. a Good Article is because I've come to a notice that most of the Jump articles aren't very good (especially Business Jump).... neither is really any other manga magazine article. ~_~ So with Jump SQ. I wanted to make a change to that, so I started with a very crappy article, started by making lists in those fancy boxes, History, Supreme Yomikiri Series, etc., and there you have it! – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I would like to get it to GA one day. I'd like to expand it a little more, if I can, and needs copyediting and a peer review before it would be ready though. And agreed on the other mags. Magazine and company articles are some of the projects most neglected ones, unfortunately. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, people only care about the series.... which is a shame. Maybe you should add a section bout how people think that Shojo Beat is the female version of Weekly Shonen Jump, which is abviosly not true. Trust me a lot of people think that. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've been slowly working on cleaning up the Tokyopop, A.D. Vision, and Viz Media articles. I plan to add in a reaction section, if I can find some reliably sourced comments about it. Its sales pale in comparison to Shonon Jump so far, but still not doing to bad, I think. :) (says the person who owns every last issue since it debuted LOL) Need to see if anyone has done any discussions about Viz's failures with the Shojo Beat anime line, versus the seeming success of the manga.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! AD Vision, and TOKYOPOP are train wrecks! Well I guess it's not as bad as the Japanese translation on Me & My Katamari (Boku no Watashi no Katamari Damashii), it said it was translated to My My Clump Spirit and My Clump Spirit of Mine. Yikes! It should just be "Our Clump Spirit". So anyway, have you ever read Jump SQ.? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Viz and Tokyopop I managed to get some history going on. AD has been tougher (sucky site has no historical stuff). Dealing with people want to rant about stuff is the biggest thing though. I cleaned out some of the worse stuff awhile back, but all three still quite a bit of work yet. And nope, never ready Jump SQ. Shojo Beat is the first manga anthology I've read at all, much less subscribed too. I usually either read new titles by checking them out from the library, or blind buy the first volume after either flipping through or reading a promising review on AoD. :) SB lets me get a monthly hit of manga and try out new series too :D -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read a Japanese manga magazine? I find them alot more interesting ^_^, it's more authentic and the series are unedited. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope...I can't read Japanese and I'd find just looking at the pictures kind of frustrating ;) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay : ). I would find that frustrating too. Is there any series that you've admired? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a Reception section to Jump SQ., there is over 60 references now. Alot of the page is sourced. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd also suggest reconsidering some of the lists/tables in the article. May also want to clean up and clean out the ELs. There are quite a few there. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, they would be great sources. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Category needs cleanup

Ever since you redirected Majin Boo Saga, a couple of the links in Category:Dragon Ball sagas needed a revise of their own. Do you have time to sort through these? I still have a long watchlist to check. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the bot take care of the double redirects? :P For the episode lists, I've asked for help with those in the projects, cause merging the split lists and fixing names/formats is a big task. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I do remember something like that on my watchlist. Where is the discussion exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Dragon Ball episodes for the discussion I started, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Any Dragon Ball fan there? for the call for help :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball GT episodes done. Needs another check, and missing some English translated and some transliterated titles, but much better I hope :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the GT pages. Wish I could help, it's just that (for some reason) I have no inspiration to edit those articles. Can you come up with a different phrasing for Sano, as discussed here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suprised I got the inspiration to tackle it this morning. I just meant to take a look to see what each page was using :P Yep, will work on the Sano phrasing soon as I can remember which volume Sano talks about why he became a fight merchant in (or find it; should be one of the first ones). Probably not until later this afternoon/evening though.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hate to sound like a broken record but have you the time to make that edit to Sano? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

okay...finally done :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you think Fireball (manga) should be proded? Doesn't appear WP:NOTABLE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though gotta give the creator two points for adding "it is notable because" :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, want to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes#Have their own pages! regarding the redirecting of the plotty saga pages back to the episode pages as they were redunant and violated WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did stumble upon that conversation. User:Ynhockey didn't seem too civil there eh? I would join in, but don't have an opinion on the subject. What would you want me to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not our first meeting, unfortunately. Just wanted a third opinion from someone from the project, on whether the saga pages belonged. :) Still need to work on merging that list with its dubbed. GT is merged, but need to add in the missing titles. Took me 3 hours to do GT...wonder how long Z will take LOL -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Collectonian, could you please reduce the size of your signature? The font-size: 12pt; formatting creates text the same size as the <big> tag, which is discouraged per WP:SIG, and effects surrounding text. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. Never seen that page before. Be useful if it were linked from the preferences section since I was looking around for Sig guidelines quite awhile before just making do. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, much better. Thanks. Linking the guideline from within the preference section about sigs wouldn't be a bad idea. I know the first time I tried to create a signature, it violated all kinds of things (it was truly horrendous). Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Iggy, again.

I'm not sure, but do you think that something from this url link could be used in the article? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I took a look but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with Iggy? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly take a look..?

Hello Collectionian.

I'm currently waiting, patiently, for feedback on my article Prehistoric medicine so that I can improve it to a GA-status article, but it's a very, very long time coming. I was wondering whether you might be able to have a look at it for me and provide some, even breif, suggestions of your own. You seemed very friendly and professional, when you messaged me some time ago, and so you were the first person I thought of. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to take a look at it later this evening. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some things I immediately noticed. The article is violating some basics of the Wikipedia MoS, such as having the refs inside the punctuation. For example, "[2]." should be ".[2]." It also steps out of the article with parenthetical "see alsos" and "see below", which are a big no-no. The first image should be in the top right corner rather than moved down. The lead doesn't seem to meet WP:LEAD, being relatively short with two referenced items seeming to indicate they are not summarizations of the article. Some of the sectioning seems excessive. If the larger section only has two paragraphs, they really don't need individual headers. You may also want to check WP:MOSHEAD, as some of the headers seem to go against the grain. The references need some consistent formatting, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. I personally find the citation templates, such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} useful for this purpose, but you can also manually format them. For a GA run, I'd first recommend making the MoS fixes noted above, having the article peer reviewed, and have it thoroughly copyedited. There are also quite a few statements in the article still needing in-line references before it could pass GA. I hope this helps some. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Collectonian for reviewing the article. I've made most of the changes you mention and will continue to make more, but, and I know it probably doesn't comply with something in the basics, I don't think that the first image should be moved to the top-right, purely for aesthetic reasons.

I have some things to add (I didn't even realise the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) thing!), the article will hopefully become a GA-article, eventually! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to have a look at the article. I'd be happy to return the favour anyime so, if you need me, don't hesitate to ask. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) I kinda agree on the image, but I thought I should mention it since it recently came up as an issue on a list I'm prepping for FLC. The image is beside the menu (takes up the otherwise big white space), but someone said it had to be at the top. So it might come up when you go to do a GA or FA run. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleach character cleanup

See this discussion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments left. Any thoughts on Link's desired changes in DBZ and his claims that the MoS violates Wikipedia's naming guidelines? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode summaries are original research

Un-cited episode summaries are original research. They have no basis, besides fan created speculation. Therefore, they deserve removal based on Wikipedia's original research policy's clause: This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. They are fully in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are sourced from the primary material. The only vandal here is use. If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia and being disruptive, you will be blocked. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide primary source material. Forming an episode summary requires an opinion on what is important in a specific episode. It is subjective and OR. Also, please provide a link to the policies and guidelines that pertain to this issue. Thank use for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not put citation tags on episode summaries, nor regular plot summaries. It is the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia that its unnecessary. The source is implicit to the primary source. Episode summaries are neither subjected nor OR. Te page you quoted, WP:PSTS, also includes this: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..." Episode summaries are descriptive claims, not OR. Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed expands on this: "Plot of the subject of the article – If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details." Also on many other pages and its been discussed dozens upon dozens of times with the same conclusion, plot summaries do not need sourcing and are not OR. This is also shown extensively in our featured articles on various fictional works, and their featured episodes lists. Plot summaries do NOT need citing. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, can you explain to me how someone can view the two relevant sources--the One Piece manga and anime--and not come to the conclusion that some episodes in the anime are not based on the chapters in the manga? It's implicit in the media that either story arcs appear in the manga or they don't.129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)