User talk:Goodraise

B Class

I've put in a request at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga to have the checklist either show always or at least also show for C class so people can see the list without having to mark is as B and causing it to show up in the list of articles needing their classes fixed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, sound's like the best solution. It's always good to see, what still has to be done. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One Piece

I did not make a mistake. The entire paragraph is now sourced by the ANN article, which states what I put there, that both one-shots ran in the special summer issue. I also left a note on the talk page about it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One Piece Pirate Crews

I was thinking that it would be good if every pirate crew mentioned in One Piece is gathered on one page, List of One Piece Pirate Crews. The page is already created and you have made contributions in it.

Therefore, I wanted to ask whether every seperate One Piece pirate crew page like Red Haired Pirate Crew should be merged within the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. - Krupted Soul (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you might not have noticed, that merging character and crew/oranizations has been discussed on Talk: List of One Piece characters, just that nobody started doing anything afterwards... Most of the One Piece articles are in a state of total chaos, containing plot information, character lists and various other information, with no apparent structure, when compared among each other.

About List of One Piece Pirate Crews, that article as it is now, with this weird table format is in no shape to be merged into. If you want to pursue your suggestion, I'd advise to start by to moving everything (or everything that can be moved somewhere else) out of that page first. And then start it over.

As to if "every" crew should be merged there, I'd have to say, maybe not. But I don't think anyone would disagree, if the 90% less important crews would be merged/mentioned there. All in all, it's a good idea, that's gonna be a lot of work. Go ahead and try! Nothing can't be undone, so you can't break anything. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totaly right about the tables in the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. In my opinion, the reason for one piece articles being in a state of chaos is mainly because they are copied from the website One Piece Wikia. I will start editing the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews but it will take a long time. Take care! - Krupted Soul (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask, should I start editing the topic List of One Piece Pirate Crews? I am not sure if the topic will remain or might be merged into other topics. - Krupted Soul (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows what will happen to the articles, nobody owns them, we just do what we think is best. You really need not be concerend about what will happen later. Even if pages are merged, the conents (and therefore the edits done on them) won't be lost. But most of all, you don't need to ask anybody before you edit an article. Wikipedia works the exact opposite way around: You do what you think is best and if anyone disagrees (s)he can can undo it afterwards. Just go ahead! :) -- Goodraise (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) - Krupted Soul (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gune

This editor is reverting many good faith edits for unexplained reasons. Have you noticed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. But I don't quite know what to do. I talked with him first here and then here. But that didn't lead anywhere. He isn't argueing, just stating that he disagrees, and reverting my edits. What should I do? -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just revert him on those pages. I'll watchlist them to see if he'll do it again. If he breaks WP:3RR, I'll file a report. Sound good? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, though he already broke that one on both of the pages in question: Baroque Works and The Three Great Powers. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll put in a full protection request. First, where did the consensus take place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit complicated... Most recently here: Talk:List of One Piece characters#Star Merge - Episode IV: A New Hope as well as a number of previous topics on the same talk page, including the archive (a lot to read), and partly here: Talk:One Piece#Cursed/Devil Fruits about the creation of World of One Piece. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed my vote in [1]. The articles have been added to my watchlist. Now Gune (talk · contribs) has been warned. Let's see if he tries it again. It'll be simpler requesting a block if it continues. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One Piece terms

Do you have any real objection to switching all of the Japanese terms to their English counterparts (i.e Shichibukai --> Seven Warlords of the Sea or whatever)? The terms in this site's articles really should make sense to the casual reader, while things like that really just appeal to the hardcore fan. TTN (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection, no, not really. I only see a difficulty there. The One Piece manga has an official translation, as well as the anime, which actually has three, which all seem seldom to agree on a term. Then there's the issue, that the manga is still ongoing and these pages are kept up to speed with the chapters released in Japan, hence causing things to be mentioned, which don't yet have an official translation. As far as I am concerned, I don't care wether it's "Seven Warlords of the Sea", "Seven Armed Seas", "Shichibukai" or whatever. But I also don't think that a casual reader will get a better understanding, from "Seven Warlords of the Sea" than from "Shichibukai", as the terms both aren't very descriptive and I dare say even missleading. (I don't know, if I have to elaborate this, as I don't know how deep, if at all, you are into the story.) Personally, I think it's best to use the romanized terms and explaining what they are, as the "official" terms are only known to those reading the manga or watching the show anyways, putting them more in the corner of fans and less in that of the real casual reader.

If you're asking wether I'd oppose a switch, then the answer is "no". But I wouldn't back it up either. It would probably only cause more chaos than there is already in the One Piece articles. (Not to mention all the links and redirects...) -- Goodraise (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

With a series like this, I guess you can only go so far with helping the reader. In the very least, "Seven Warlords" conveys that they are seven strong guys without having to follow a separate link. Even if it'll be awkward, it's something that needs to be done eventually. The anime project recently backed the same kind of thing with Dragon Ball series, with the English anime names and terms taking precedent. Whatever can be considered the most popular is what would we would use (though that may entail changing Zoro to Zolo, ect). Japanese terms will probably just use the best possible English translation (unless you can find anything specific about it). I'll definitely wait to do anything major after the pages are settled. TTN (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are FOUR english translations! ODEX, VIZ, 4Kids and FUNIMATION! Use the universal Japanese names for the sake of the arguments involving those four DIFFERENT translations being questioned. 92.232.91.192 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The animanga MoS is pretty clear on this, official translations from the media which contributed most to the series' popularity are to be used ("If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world."). —Dinoguy1000 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: One Piece AfD comment

"I don't know what you're implying here, but being the one who did most (step forward if you disagree) of that cleanup, and also being the one who suggested putting this article up for deletion, instead of simply truning the page into a redirect, without saving anything of it's conent, I'd like to point out, that I consider this AfD to be part of that cleanup process."

I wasn't trying to imply anything, really. Because TTN (talk · contribs) had also nominated a large number of other articles for deletion over just a couple of days' time, I had assumed (I've got to stop doing that... *knuckles head*) that he nominated this list just to get rid of it (not that I'm saying it didn't need gotten rid of, of course), and that he was unaware of the previous cleanup push. That being said, I am unaware of any of the details of this cleanup myself, as I have unwatchlisted a number of high-traffic articles since I started working, and never watched the One Piece-related articles particularly closely anyways. The only reason I even knew of the cleanup is because I kept {{One Piece}} on my watchlist, and have seen articles being removed from the template one by one. —Dinoguy1000 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for removing my double post on Talk:List of One Piece episodes. I'm sorry if a Wikimedia server error (which I encountered yesterday morning) unexpectedly caused this to happen. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanji_1990

hey don't worry about it i wasn't really offended. if i find some useful information i'll let you know.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

I have addressed your concerns. Please review the above FLC again? Thanks—Chris! _ct 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

one piece minor characters

on the in-universe, out-universe why does it matter which it is? wouldnt an in-universe grouping of characters give the reader more knowledge and be easier to read and understand for readers for example haveing the groups say, the supernovas, watergate7 carpentors, shandrona warriors, for examples that would be around 20 characters and be much more infomation on what groups the characters and less info on the invidual, this would make it easier to understand whose who, be able to find and link infomation much better, also work better with characters that would need an explantion of but not there own section.

Hi. I think you'll find answers to all of these questions here. If not, please ask there, as to keep discussion of that topic in one place. Aside from that: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ and consider creating a user account. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

this isant speffic to that article i referring it to minor characters the characters in the place you referred are different from the minor characters they can be group or separeted becuase of amount of info and importance to story however most minor characters dont have the importance or the info its best to group them to increase the importance for example ill use the 11 supernovas because its easy they only reason im seeing that the 9 supernovas are still on that list is because people see them cooler than other characters. all of them ecept maybe kidd should be deleted. but when grouped into the 11 supernovas, the 11 supernovas combined make a section that hold more importance that works better for the invidual characters and the whole of the article, i have/had called agentheartlesspain or something like that forgot what it was 24.152.140.190 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I left this unanswered for so long. I've seen it, decided to answer it later, and forgotten about it. Really sorry.

Well, we are currently discussing the future of List of minor One Piece characters over here. I think it's best to wait with this issue until that is discussion is over. Feel free to join in. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Is there some particular reason you feel the need to be repeatedly abusive about how stupid you think my ideas are? Once is enough. Several times saying the same thing without adding anything useful is over the line. arimareiji (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't abusive, not even once. I don't think your ideas are stupid. I think they add nothing but instruction creep to a system that is working perfectly fine. Elaborating on an earlier post because one thinks its meaning had not been made clear enough should be perfectly acceptable. My comments my not have added anything useful to your proposal but from a project perspective it is useful to point out when a discussion is a wasted effort. - I contribute to whatever discussion I want and as much as I want. And I will do so as long as I think that my comments are in the least bit helpful. If you can't handle being opposed, then Wikipedia might not be the right place for you. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's useful to repeatedly add derogatory comments afer you've already made it clear that you think something isn't worth discussing? We have very different opinions of what is "useful," and what is "shouting down." arimareiji (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We clearly have different opinions on what is "derogatory", "useful", and "shouting down". But as I pointed out already, on Wikipedia, you'll have to live with people disagreeing with you. You'll even have to live with people saying things several times, as that is apparently what you need. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not so thin-skinned as to obligingly leave - I'll leave it at that. (Yes, you have suggested it twice.) arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reported

I just reported Gune to the admins for his edit warring. I'm sick of this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Reborn! chapters

The summaries were fixed. Could have a look there to see if it is now better?Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First off: I didn't read all summaries, only the first few, the last few, and one or two in the middle. The later summaries look fine. And as far as I can tell, the earlier summaries have improved as well. The second one, however, remains a bit confusing. Also: "As Iemitsu goes to Italy after the Varia leader, Xanxus, hints that something happened to the ninth boss, the fight between Yamamoto and Superbia Squalo the swordsman who attacked some time ago, starts at an underground level of the school." doesn't make too much sense to me. - All in all, the prose has improved, but it's not yet brilliant. - Drop me a line if you want more feedback. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which summaries do you mean when you said the "second one, however, remains a bit confusing"?Tintor2 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant the summary of volume 2. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, could you later check Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach chapters/archive1 and add your comments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been working in also in List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters and it has recently been copy-edited. Could you have a little look? I think the lead needs some fixes, but I dont what.Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Went over it. You might want to move the part about Viz' edits to the main page under "Development" or something. Same goes for all those international releases. This is the English Wikipedia. Mention it in the main article. Also consult our other featured chapter lists. What isn't in the lead of any of those, probably doesn't belong in the lead of that list either. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I rewrote the lead a bit. The use of other countries are also used in a few FL. I trimmed it a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A little question goodraise, why cant the one piece episode list be splitted? Is due to some changes in the English version?Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't split it along English seasons, because lack of information. We kind of agreed to split along the Japanese seasons, but waited with the actual split to give time for more participation in the discussion. Well, it's on my TODO list, for when I start more active editing again. (The details are all on the talk page, but it's quite much to read...) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Manga and Anime BarnLoli Award
		Man, you just get loads of loads of work done, and you certainly don't have enough barnstars. Thanks for the assessments! DARTH PANDAduel 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Movie 4 "Multi-Edit Vandalism"

Goodraise, I'd appreciate it if you stopped editing the details of Dead End Adventure that I've had to resubmit three times now-- your excuse of "reverting multi-edit vandalism and excessive plot details" and "pointless plot details" just doesn't fly with me. Have you looked at the information regarding the other movies? Movie 4 was given the shortest of synopsis out of all of them, and my edit was a concise description of the plot and subplots of the film-- while I concede that it is a 'multi-edit' matter, it's neither vandalism nor excessive. So please, stop reverting my edits.

Also, in case you have any doubt that any of the characters I listed in the subplot (Biera, Anaguma, Shuraiya Bascùd) actually are a part of the Dead End Adventure, I suggest you take a look at [2]. Thank you. Klayr (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

I didn't use the term "multi-edit vandalism" to refer to your addition, but to actual vandalism, I happend to revert with the same edit. Your edit also wasn't a "concise description of the plot" but an expansion of a more concise description of the plot. Wikipedia is not a plot summary site. The summary of Dead End Adventure isn't too short, the other movie summaries are simply too long. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it was a part of mine, apologies on that. If you're going to say that the rest are too long, you should edit them, too, and not just Dead End Adventure's-- I think you need to take into consideration the fact that a big part of One Piece is the minor characters, and if you're going to include ONLY what the Strawhats do in the films, it's doing a great disservice to the rest of the characters. I hope you're going to leave my edit alone now, because there is no reason to revert it back to what you had up. Klayr (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

Actually, there was a reason to revert it back to what I had up. But never mind that. This discussion made me think and subsequently create List of One Piece movies. Within that page, I can live with the length of the summaries. Hope you agree. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That'll do. Klayr (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

New Cutie Honey assessment, peer review

I noticed your recent assessment of New Cutie Honey. I've edited it a bit since then, and if you have any thoughts to share about the article's condition or how I can improve it to, e.g., a good article, I've now listed it for peer review. Thanks, --an odd name 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

hey Goodraise-sama

umm the user known "Geg" is doing the Sake vs. Booze again. and I just thought you should know about it. =^-^=; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I'm neutral on the issue and you should seek to talk to him, instead revert warring. Regards, -- Goodraise (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag and Assess 2008

Just curious, but shouldn't you, when assessing the articles (specifically Memories Off as a C-class, also fill out the B-class review? I know when I did it I always fill it out. -- クラウド６６８ 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the instructions say "Please set add and set these parameters for all C-class and B-class articles." That kind of surprises me. It's a lot more work and in most cases does little good. Whatever, I guess I'll go fix the mess I created... xD -- Goodraise (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry too much about going back to articles you already covered. i will follow uncompleted checklists up (they are all properly categorised, which makes it easier once everything else is done). And thank you very much for the help. Due to my internet connection I will only be able to start major editing next week - sorry if I cannot help assessing at the moment. Regards, G.A.S^talk 07:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bitch, but since it's in the instructions I went with it, lol. -- クラウド６６８ 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on Kina yamaka

Looks like a fanfic character -- especially with that parentage. In any case, she doesn't appear in any cast list, which is enough to delete her as arrant nonsense. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Aria (manga) assessment

Since you were good enough to come through and assess the article, I was wondering if you could come back and expound a little bit on what you see as missing, that you rated B2 as N? Just looking for a little outside guidance. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article seemed rather complete to me. I only rated B2 as failed, because three sections are tagged for expansion. Though the chapter list probably uses the wrong template. It probably should use {{Inc-up}}. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Huh -- it used to be {{inc-up}}, but someone came through and changed it a few months ago.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And ... with a little more work (which was already in progress) the only section marked for real expansion is the Production. So that (and the continuing reference improvements for the media sections) looks what we need to focus on next. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Assements

Kraftos has done the first 50 on section 38, but as it is listed as Doing on the second 50 and he hasn't said which, I'm not sure which ones he's done.じんない 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did 30 on G.A.S.'s last range before I realized he had reserved them.じんない 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tally updated. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the irony is i figured that out just before I reached the 800 mark. :pじんない 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tallied it again. Now it's 800. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are that close that your dividing up the ranges? I'd like to finish this last range if possible. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you say that in more words? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you guys just chopped up the last range I was working on and finished it. Would have been nice to have some warning, I was around and could have quickly finished it up... Oh well. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Jinnai and I seem to have gotten in an assessment rage and finished the remaining ~350 articles in ~2 hours. Again, sorry. :\ -- Goodraise (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		Anime and manga service award
		By order of the Coordinators of the Anime and manga Tag and Assess—for your outstanding work in Tag & Assess 2008—I award you this Silver Wiki. You are an example to us all. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		BarnSakura
		For tagging and assessing over 1,000 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this BarnSakura. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		Working Man's Barnstar
		For tagging and assessing 800 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		Anime and manga service award
		For tagging and assessing 600 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As always, keep up the good work:) and furthermore...

		Barnloli
		For tagging and assessing hundreds of articles not included in Tag & Assess 2008, I further present you with this Anime and manga BarnLoli. Thanks for the help. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Speed Grapher characters

Hello, thanks for your quick assessment of List of Speed Grapher characters! I had a question for you... I was basing my list off of List of Naruto characters, which did not exhibit anything I can identify as a nav template. At the risk of sounding stupid, what is a nav template? If you mean the template at the bottom, Speed Grapher doesn't have enough articles to justify one, unfortunately. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's a nav template. If there's not enough articles for that, a "See also" section, containing items such as chapter and episode lists, will also do. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The main article contains only a plot section and an episode list. In that case: never mind. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh... In addition to that, Merchandise for Speed Grapher doesn't exist (at all) and there is no information about Creation and Conception on the internet. Since the Naruto list's lead seemed to be based on Creation and Conception, I do not believe I can lengthen the lead at this time... Ah, it's too bad that I'll have to settle for C-Class. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if all that stuff doesn't exist, it will be hard - if not impossible - to reach FL status. I'd even question the appropriateness of the spin-out. The main article doesn't scream "I am so notable, create spin-outs of me!" either. (Sorry to be the bearer of such grim news. :\ ) -- Goodraise (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely not going for a FL with this one. However, I feel a spin-out is appropriate due to the extreme length of both the episode list and the character list (I will be working on moving the episode list out next) and the resultant size of the main article. Hopefully, I'll get the main article fixed up a bit so that it looks appropriate. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode and chapter lists are about real items. Character lists aren't. They can't expect the same acceptance. Mind WP:PLOT. - But whatever, just saying. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. If this gets AfD'd, I'll argue my case, but I don't think there should be any large issues for now. Again, thanks for your help! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranma

You said in one of the Afd's that you have read the manga several times, and obviously you have a good knowledge of what makes a good wiki page. Have you considered starting List of Ranma ½ characters yourself? I have only watched the anime, and with so many characters that either have smaller, or simply non existant parts in the anime I don't feel qualified to do it myself (theres also the issue of the quality of my writing...). Even if it was just one paragraph per each of the more notable characters, it would be a good way to start the process of merging the seeprate articles over time into the list. Theres no rush of course, but you do seem qualified! I can help with merging and watching the page if it's any help. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehh? You've read the manga several times, Goodraise? Can I take that to mean you own the series, and in that case, would you be willing to help with the creation of a chapter list? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't have a particular interest in editing Ranma ½ articles, but if there's no one else going to, I might as well just do it (creating a basic character list). As for the chapter list, with that I have the same problem I have with One Piece: I don't have any of the volumes in English (or Japanese for that matter). Therefore I don't know of how much help I can be. The best I might come up with are fan translated chapter titles. I also read somewhere, that the English release uses a different volume size (and possibly chapter order). -- Goodraise (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the english volumes are bigger I believe Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, don't worry about the chapter list, then, I was only going to ask your help if you actually owned volumes from the series. As Dandy said, the English volumes are slightly larger (I guess, I'm unable to compare any English volumes with their Japanese counterparts), since Viz compressed the series from its original 38-volume length down to 36 volumes (in both editions, much less =P ). As I've stated several times before, this is the main reason I haven't just gone ahead and created a chapter list. Maybe User:Doceirias can either get ahold of the Japanese volumes or can point me to someone else who can, though... I haven't tried asking him yet. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The ever useful Furinkan.com has chapter names for the japanese volumes here. Also, as Furinkan is considered RS, it's useful for referencing it too :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EH?!! How come I've never been pointed there before (or inadvertently stumbled across it myself)? That helps immensely! ^_^ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't spot it when I asked if it was considered RS a few months back then? Pretty much the first place to go for any Rumiko Takahashi related info, and it's used in some form (either as refs or links) on most pages relating to her works Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? You're right, I never really paid attention to it before, mostly because I didn't know anything about it (and certainly not that it held such a gold mine of information!). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy cleanup on my merge :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was better to do it right away, before it piles up. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I'm just not very good at it :p I've added the article to the template too. Once the separate articles get reduced, I'll merge the episode list template into the character one. No idea why there are two templates when it could easily be done in one - the character tenplate isn't even named as such, it's just "ranma-navigation" Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets just say I had a bit of practice, when I turned this into that. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, not exactly one of the easier series to do so with :p Thats all I was planning to bold merge (only 5vols into the manga), so you're free for the rest of the day if you want :D Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of One Piece characters

Sorry about the heading formatting, I thought I had found an error. I had to get the two revisions side by side to realize what I had done. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's an understandable error; the jump from == to ==== is a bit weird after all. But the overall look of the list is just better with smaller sub-section names. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot about that prediction; good call! I'm so glad we have those archived merge discussions to back us up! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Elfen Lied characters

About the assessment of the article, first thanks for keeping me honest. I got a little too excited about the article's progress and got a little carried away, overlooking some glaring errors. You assessed the article as failing the grammar/style (B4) criterion, was that because of the copyedit banner on the page or because you noticed errors on the page? Because since I put the tag up in December, I think the bad grammar has been done away with. Anyway, I just wanted to know what I need fix on the page and what you might have seen that I'm not seeing. Thanks! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I took into consideration the copy-edit tag at the top, the fact that b4 was previously marked as failed, and also read a few random samples of the article. One of those samples, I'd have to read the whole list to find it again, was of really poor quality. The other samples however where acceptable. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After doing some translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article, I'm pretty sure a lot of the original content came from there. The grammar mistakes that I've seen have had a familiar Spanish syntax. Anyway, I don't want to rope you into working on the article, but if you see anything really bad please let me know. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chōjū-giga

I would preferred to have some more discussion before an assessment was made on that article due to the ramifications of an article like that being under the WP:ANIME scope.じんない 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get someone else, to answer it, because it does need serious discussion. If our scope is all manga, then it vastly broadens our scope to include a decent number more articles for both the scrolls, prints as well as people. All of those need to then be assessed to the importance and it would almost require a seperate section to deal with them because it's hard to argue that anyone that is remembered this far into the future that they would not deserve a lowest a high priority, and msot of them top using the current inclusion criteria for indivisuals associated with the project's scope. Moreover all of them could be argued to have high level of importance as well given the "impact" it's had on manga, and in some cases, the rest of the art world.じんない 11:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I monitor WT:ANIME. I noticed the discussion you started there. But I didn't reply, because I don't care. (Did that sound rude? Gotta be careful, many wikipedians are so thin-skinned...) I'm simply not interested in defining the scope of WP:ANIME. What I care about is keeping the todo lists of WP:ANIME/ASSESS empty. If something shows up there, I'll assess it. If people later decide, that it's not part of the scope, then that fine with me. As for the importance scale, it currently does cover those articles: manga (equivalent to anime, which is given as example for: top), history of manga (spinout of manga and equivalent to history of anime, which is given as example for: high), history of manga before World War II (possible spinout of history of manga: mid), Chōjū-giga (possible spinout of history of manga before World War II: low). Anyways, please don't drag me into this discussion. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't care if you get in the discussion. I just didn't want you, or anyone, assessing it because it hadn't been seriously discussed. By assessing it, you create a standard, whether you want to believe it or not -- actions speak. The problem with history of manga, which you point to does not deal with stuff so old. Either that article needs updating, or the scope needs refining, or both. Assessing without context just because it appears is bad form, especially when another member has questioned the validity of the article being under the scope.じんない 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the purpose of this discussion. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment on Yotsuba Koiwai

During Tag and Assess 2008 the instructions were given that we were to set the template at "|class=B if and only if an article meets the majority of the B-Class criteria". And again the example tag below "Nearly B-Class: ''{{WikiProject Anime and manga |class=B |B1=n |B2=y |B3=y |B4=y |B5=y |B6=y |importance=Mid}}''". This article clearly is meeting the majority of the B-class criteria (all except one); why are you setting it back down to C? I realize this is a small thing and really doesn't matter, but it really irks me that even after I explained my reasons you still insist on setting it that way when it was explicitly stated otherwise in the Tag and Assess instructions. Why are you doing this? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have annoyed you. I didn't look at the talk page's history, so I didn't see your explanation. - Those instructions where only for the T&A drive. They allowed for a second pass on borderline B-class articles. Whenever you assess an article like that, it will show up on my todo list. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that make sense. Thanks for clearing that up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(<--) When the tag & assess started, the template showed the checklist if, and only if, |class=B. The idea was, in short, to only complete the chedklist for high C, and B class articles in order to save time. About a week or two after we started, the template was updated to display the checklist for all C class articles as well, and the maintenance category was added. The auto assess is not taken into account by the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article-gadget", hence the need to fix it.

(I have since reviewed - as Goodraise said - all of the articles where the auto assess were different from the actual assessment, and completed all of the remaining checklists.)

Regards, G.A.S^talk 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And since then, Start class has also been added to the mix - it all gets rather complicated, and I can't recall the exact details offhand (rather bad, considering I was the one who made the majority of the updates to the B checklist). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even worse, since the project templates' indenting seems to be made with STO in mind. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't say, since much of it is before my time. But I'd be inclined to say it's just a result of different people adding different things at different times, without taking care to preserve and emulate the already-present formatting. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could' have been worse:) G.A.S^talk 05:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gah... code... so... dense... makes my head hurt... @_@ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Popotan mini-games

I was told after talking to the members at WP:VN to put them in the character page because they are separate from the main game and do not really fit with the series, but more with character list because they have only 1 character in them from the series. They also commented that it would likely give more notability to the characters list as well.じんない 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an editorial question, where to put them. Possible places are the character list's lead, its merchandise section, the main article's related media section, and propably another few places I didn't think of. Can't help you any further than that. - Just so you know: 1-2 sentence paragraphs/sections aren't exactly held in high esteem at FAC/FLC... -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but before I would bring this up for an FLC, I want to have it copyedited since my last FLC failed mostly for that reason.じんない 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

WikiThanks

thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. You maybe interested that it looks like several editors replied to your contributions. Have a wonderful week. Ikip (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is awarded to goodraise, for his/her revolutionary ideas proposed on User:Goodraise/Notability (fiction). This proposal will help wikipedia retain valuable contributions and as a result, editors. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I can't accept this barnstar. I did not propose anything (except the removal of excessive wording). I only boiled the current proposal, in the creation of which I had no part, down to a much shorter version. It also seems, that you missread it. I'm sorry to disappoint you. :( -- Goodraise (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know:)

WikiThanks

Thank You

I really appreciate your help, especially on the assessment requests. G.A.S^talk 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, that's what I call a diff. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to that (even if I didn't help...)! XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

formatting problem

All I was commenting on was that Jinnai's numbered list is botched, and has two number ones in it. If you can just fix it, feel free.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

Thanks for your review. Could you please check if I got the serial comma right? I believe that was your last concern. Thanks for your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I believe you referred to the infobox to the right. I removed the comma before the and to make it consistent with the rest of the article. I noticed that changes to the template may take a while to be visible. However, please be asured that I did make it consitent now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag

A television series running on a major television network should be inherently notable, so I removed the tag from Chikkun Takkun WhisperToMe (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What guideline says so? -- Goodraise (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation

Thanks; I forgot the stupid hash symbol. Deor (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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 [3])? 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Started discussion at Talk:List of Bleach chapters#Splitting. Feel free to comment.Tintor2 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
		I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits in the anime and manga articles, most notably the One Piece articles. Keep up the good work!Tintor2 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.228.68 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the reply. Though I was hoping you had found another source of information than that website, because it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. You don't, by any chance, own any of Odex releases? -- Goodraise (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry I don't own any of the VCDs released by Odex. All I have seen of that dub is a few clips (including others besides those posted on that website). But if they ever release them to DVD here in the states, I would most likely buy them. But for now, the Funi dub is fine w/me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.78.225 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in search of episodes of this dub. Do you know how to find them? I'm also trying to find out if Funimation is going to dub more One Piece movies.I thought it was kind of weird that they started with movie eight, though they did do a good job (I felt that Catlin Glass' version of the ending theme on the Blu-Ray was even better than the Japanese version)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.102.244 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here they are selling the first VCD. For the remaining seven(?), you'll have to search eBay and the likes I fear. Good luck though. (In case you do buy it, tell me. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into it as soon as I get my hands on a VCD player and save up my money (I'm only in my mid-teens at the moment). You don't happen to know where to watch this online do you? P.S. You will love this song from the Funimation dub of One Piece movie 8: (Removed link to copyright violation. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)) Please tell me what you think of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.150.12.207 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the link doesn't work (I'm bad at typing in web addresses) just go to youtube and search for "One Piece movie 8 ending english" I apologize fo any trouble I may have caused you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.150.12.207 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the English version of "Compass" is good. I can understand that some like it better than the original. However, please do not post links to copyright violations on my talk page (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). As for a VCD player, don't waste your money. Practically every DVD player can play VCDs as well. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like the song. The singer is Catlin Glass, who is the voice of Vivi in the Funimation dub. You can hear the song exclusively on the Blu-Ray version of the movie. And I apologize for the link. I won't be posting links to copyright violations on Wikipedia anymore. But I have a question regarding the fact that VCD Players can play on DVD players. Do you know if they can play in a Region 1 DVD player (Singapore would probably use Region 2)? And what exactly is the difference between a VCD and a DVD? And do you know if Funimation will ever dub more One Piece movies, and did Odex ever dub any? Ciao--99.207.164.153 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Myanimelist

Kei-clone is a Forum mod on MAL, and the previous COI tag was removed simply because it wasn't discussed or reasons given (at least, just from looking at the summarys). Worth readding it? Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just passed by to do a requested assessment. I do not know enough about that website nor am I involved enough in that article to judge whether that editor is able to keep the encyclopedia's interests paramount. However, I noticed that the lead is written like an advertisement and that the reception section is suspiciously positive. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks/archive1

can you check the peer review thing, i've left messages.  Dumbledore  —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

I have it watchlisted. No need to notify me. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Case Closed episodes (season 1)

Would you still like the FLC nomination to be withdrawn and archived, or would you prefer it to be kept open? If the latter, just strike your comment there so no one else does it by accident. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the editor you want to ask this is the actual nominator, DragonZero (talk · contribs). -- Goodraise (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)