User talk:Goodraise

Welcome!

If I start a discussion on your talk page, please respond there.
If you start a discussion on my talk page, I will respond here.
Please don't use {{Talkback}} on me.
I don't keep an archive. Feel free to search the history.
I can handle a lot of abuse. No need to stay civil on this talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach chapters

The FLC does not seem to be getting attention. Could you add your comment if you are free? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy right now, but I'll get to it. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems grammar issue was fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translations

Well I don't know about any real official decision or anything, but it's just that back in 07 the article went through a format change to use a template for each volume and it was rewritten to not include literal translations. Though as far as I know, other manga articles don't use them either and tend to stick with the official version. If there were literal translations, there would be many more than just those and it would probably crowd up the template a bit. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)/archive1

My apologizes that this was not successful. I do believe, however, that this list should either have the FLC reopened so that prior reviewers are given a chance to respond (the concerns were addressed, but the FLC was closed before the reviewers could respond to our fixes) or get sent to FLC again in the near future, as it is definitely passable at this stage. If you need any more help with this, or anything else, don't hesitate to ask. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well. If you want to speak to Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) about re-opening it, you'd have my support. But I'll stay away from FLC until I'm back to my normal editing rate. If it's not promoted by then I'll re-nominate it. Anyways, thanks for trying. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke with him via IRC, and his comment about closing it was that it had already been restarted once and that there were no new comments in the past week. However, he said that he would welcome a renomination at any time, so whenever you're ready, go right ahead. It seems everybody is extremely busy this time of year (although I really can't figure out why), but good luck! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you replaced the episode refs and noted that they did not cite the OP and ED songs. Are you sure of this? Absolutely every single anime I've watched (and I just checked all of the series I have on hand, including Speed Grapher, Spice and Wolf, Fullmetal Alchemist, Darker than Black, and Ah! My Goddess) cites the artist and the song (in the Japanese releases, at least). Of course, I don't have any copies of One Piece, but I'd expect that credit is given there as well so I'm surprised that One Piece does not do the same... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three theme music sequences are available on streaming websites. There's not a single line (or column) of credits in them. They could have been edited out, but that seems unlikely. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it when I get a chance. That really is odd though, and quite unfortunate. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the originals had full credits. The problem here is that K-F released a file of the 'clean' version of the opening theme from the Japanese dvds (which they use for their fansubs). Youtube is just filled with that exact same file (more of less)Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, that's good to know. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain it, really. The TV releases tend to be the versions I watch (I usually watch them as they come out instead of waiting for the DVD versions). Anyway, I've left more comments for you on my talk page. Cheers! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ANN encyclopedia information as reliable

Hello! I'm not here to complain about it being removed; in fact, I do agree with you, and have run across problems using ANN user-contributed information (one list feels very messy because of it...I'm not even sure I have the correct DVD volume release!). However, most GAs, FLs, FAs, and articles soon to be promoted have those references. Should a discussion be started to have a group of people sweep through the GA/FL/FAs to remove those sources? It's much easier to reference the official sites. Also, maybe make more of a notice for others, so that they are also aware of the change? I'm willing to start a discussion, but wouldn't know how to go about notifying others. Of course, it's not exactly necessary to do so, as future GA/FA/FLs are monitored pretty carefully. Thanks! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about starting a discussion at WT:ANIME but I decided against it. In my opinion, discussions should be started once there is disagreement. As for the quality articles, I think there is no need do anything. The relevant processes have ways to deal with their own (ever increasing) demands for, well, quality. But if you think the project should be notified beyond what I did, go ahead. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That's fine for me as well, then; I'll make sure to keep them out of articles I am working on, as well as keep an eye on articles being pushed to GA/FL. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time the info is perfectly reliable (and thats good enough for their news articles when used as sources). I often see it dismissed as "user editable", but this isn't quite correct. Information is user submittable but requires someone on the other end to okay the change (and you are suppossed to provide evidence) - or this was at least true a couple of weeks ago when I tested this. Deciding the information is unreliable is not a small matter, it has project wide ramifications - we are going to find it very hard to get articles promoted if we can't use it, and most of our articles of B+ status will essentially be knowingly using 'unreliable' sources. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN section of the MoS was added very recently after extensive discussion regarding what is, and is not, reliable. I'm not sure why you felt the need to remove it without discussion nor any seeming evidence that the view on what is an is not considered reliable on ANN has changed. If you feel some part of that should be adjusted, it should be discussion, not just removed and apparently being quietly dismissed elsewhere. ANN news is fully reliable, and ANN's encyclopedia is reliable within the boundaries established there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make changes and dicuss when someone disagrees. What's wrong with that? And as for "apparently being quietly dismissed elsewhere", I'd really like to know what you think I dismissed? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made based on, it seems, on persons disagreement with ANN's use. And I wasn't referring to you specifically on dismissing, but from above, it sounded like somewhere this had been discussed between just the two of you and decided without project discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to have stemmed from this failed FLC , however given the number of FL's we have using the same sort of source, this seems to be a one off. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...I wish more attention had been called to that FLC so that the one editor who was questioning the ANN and theme could be made to understand that first, theme songs don't even need inline citations, they are sourced to the episodes themselves, and second that ANN is reliable in that instance as a secondary source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga‎#Citing the ANN encyclopedia. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite surprising, as I've always thought that ANN was reliable; that is why I never raised the issue at FLC. That this is not case is a bit worrisome. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: This is only about the pages with an URL starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/. All other areas of ANN, with the exception of http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/, are very much reliable. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List rearrangement

I see you have done a lot of rearrangement of the various "List of One Piece" pages, in some cases moving the same page more than once. Two questions: (a) are you done now? (b) are you planning to fix the dozens of redirects that now point to the wrong targets (see [1])? The two questions go together, since there isn't much sense in fixing the double-redirects right away if the targets are just going to change again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm done now. Yes, I plan on fixing all those redirects. Don't bother to do it with a bot. Half of them should now point to a page other than the redirect they are pointing to does. - I moved the pages. I moved their contents. I created the redirects. Now it's only fair that I cleanup my mess. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just to warn you (although you might already realize this), several different users independently operate double-redirect bots and any one of them might start changing these redirects at any time. (Although it looks like you've already done a bunch of them.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I think I've fixed all those in need of special attention. If there's any left, they can probably be fixed by a bot. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived websites

There is something that I have been wondering that would be awesome to do with some sites. How do you archive the websites? It happens that some of the sites Im citing could be dissappear one of these days. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.webcitation.org/archive Cheers, -- Goodraise (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odex One Piece Dub

Yes! I found a website dedicated to this dub! It's great if you want to learn about it. It has cast lists, interviews, clips, and even pics of the video (or VCD) box sets. Here's a link! http://www.freewebs.com/singaporeanonepiece/index.html