User talk:Dandy Sephy

This is Dandy Sephy's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Notability and pages

I took care of the two issues I ran across - its been awhile since I was last really active in the A&M space because I decided it would be best to get some space. Though to be fair, it seems that I cannot rest easy when so much content is still missing or is written at such a crude level that it really isn't doing much for Wikipedia and our readers. People should not need to go to three different websites or more just to get basic information on the series - good work so far on the Lupin pages. I see that is coming along, I got some minor references, but I suspect that Castle of Cagliostro's Lupin is not really a good subject on the Lupin III page? Might be worth noting, but I don't want to rely on Cavallaro for commentary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know what you mean about taking a break now and then. Mine ended up lasting three years :p I've started working through the notability listing just to get the length down and highlight possible articles to rescue, or at least fix up enough to be notable. Lots of articles I decided to revisit later just due to the amount of afds, merges and such that need to be actioned. I'm going to make a userspace page noting some of these that I can refer to at a later time.

The main Lupin article is still going to get some rewrites and ref changes, but I'm breaking it down into smaller tasks. My main mission is to get rid of all the Lupin Encyclopedia uses, because there is enough of a grey area to it's use that it's better all round just to change them out as much as possible. Still some sections to overhaul in general though. I'll be creating a couple of Lupin articles and overhauling another one over the next few weeks (I'm collecting third party notes on the characters as well). I should also have some new bits to add to Cagliostro at some point. However I'll wait until I have content ready before going into too much detail on all of those. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds like a plan. I got my own list that I'll go through. Last time I did a blitz on A&M space I took care of over 700 tags and many of them have not come back and now that I got a bunch of GAs, I am more confident in my ability to rectify the issues. There's OVER 9000 problems, but let's see if we can't translate that down to the correct "8000" by the end of March. Ha. And about the Lupin matter - some RSes do use questionable sources, so please double check - you've seen what I had to do with the Cagliostro page right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, removing notability tags based on the run length of a manga is hiding the problem rather than fixing it. WP:N requires sources, not number of volumes. It's a hollow victory to hide the pages rather than fix them.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hiding them... if you recall, I've been actually merging a fair number of them simply because they cannot support stand alone articles. I like to think that my background really should be sorta self-apparent and I do think all the .hack publications should be combined to one page, but I assure you - expert attention is needed for a lot of things and some are just apparent. Why do you think I TNTed Abh? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be finding the problem pages at a faster rate than I... but sadly, seem to be a bit nervous of them. Should we ramp up the cleanup a bit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about starting a cleanup drive, but those haven't been entirely successful in the past. It's worthy of looking for a smaller group of articles to work from. On a side note, please don't remove notability tags from the Lupin games unless you've found sources. Only Cliffhanger and the ps2 game that was released in the US can really stand by themselves, although the DS game is a possibility. I will be merging them in the next couple of weeks if they haven't been improved, tags or not. They just don't need their own pages and the list of games article can be turned into prose instead. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article need not have sources to be notable and Angelo notability is not a requirement. The sequel game to Castle of Cagliostro was a major blow to Miyazaki and rides on the heels of the other mess with the NotVW games. I tracked down and actually played these games, like Cliffhanger at the museum and while I don't have any nice and easy sources to post up for you to read. My main issue is that I know of far more material and what can and will meet N versus the average reader on Wikipedia. Sorta comes with the territory after awhile, I rather not quibble over each and every page since one of the most notable of conventions had the tag replaced despite having major industry events, backing and many notable hostings. Notability may be the burden for inclusion, but the root is the preponderance that you can write a good and verifiable article on any subject. Time and time again have the so-called "not-notable" articles I've defended been found to be notable. Not sure if you are aware of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1+2=Paradise", but that was just the first "test" against notability and it resulted in a fair amount of searching to prove that it is indeed notable. Though being a bestseller should by definition meet that as well. The accessibility and language barrier of English editors should not be wielded as weapon to cut out subjects like this. Though if it came to it, a single page would be fine, but one page or several is not hurting anything or anyone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N is very clear that notability of content is dependant on (significant) coverage in reliable sources. Arguing that articles don't need sources to be notable is the exact opposite of what N says. Discussion about what amounts to reliable or enough content is up for debate but N is founded on that single premise. Therefore the burden of proof is on that coverage, not how notable it's parent is or how many volumes something has run for. True, English language notability isn't essential, but there still needs to be something to show it's notable, be it in Japanese, or anything else. A good example is manga that has non-English licenses. Those can make a subject notable but it's a reason to find the publishers website or a news item announcing it, not to just decide thats enough to simply mention it unsourced like some articles I cam across recently.

There are some legitimate side articles like character/chapter/episode lists which we can use, but this is for length, readability and focus. In the case of the Lupin games, begin a Lupin game isn't enough, otherwise we'd have articles for twenty different games, most of which are otherwise insignificant games that just have a famous license (like the original arcade game). Not surprising since this is how many games were made in the past (like Momoko 120% The Famicom game could, and probably should have enough sources to prove it's notable, but the point is that the article doesn't reflect this and that's how it should be judged (or improved). So please don't remove notability tags unless they actually demonstrate independant notability, are a legitimate spin out list, or the problems have been addressed. They don't need to be actioned right away, but they do make it easier to highlight problem articles. Plus the date tags are very useful. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE is pretty clear that not having sources does not mean it is not notable. Also, there is a pretty clear Dunning–Kruger effect that is compounded by people who can't read Japanese, have little familiarity with the subject or outright advocate the deletion of fictional topics regardless of their importance. A&M has many barriers to actual content production and clean up, but that does not mean we should cut our nose off to spite our face. Notice I am not saying we should have 20 articles for 20 different games, but exceptions exist and for those that do not meet N, they should be given combined articles that cover them. I have gaming magazines that date back to the 1980s and sadly, being such a information collector means that I have far more sources and knowledge then Wikipedia, but it is not feasible to put it all up or even sort through half the mess. If I had access to the NDL, I'd be set for many of these articles and the standard industry ones would cover the rest. A&M's greatest threat is the mentality of its editors - being positive and productive surpasses all other issues by virtue of a welcoming community. Deletion is always the last resort, and merging is a real good option - Wikipedia's ability is unlimited, just editor's need to forge strong bonds and content to keep it going. In fact, the space has been largely dead since 2007 and many problems remain that are not notability related. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Gamer 126

if you could lend me the scans regarding the wonderswan feature, it would be great. Lucia Black (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, I've just not been able to do it yet. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mystery of Mamo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uzumaki

Do you have any coverage on the manga Uzumaki? Lucia Black (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have a short review by Jason Thompson. I'll see if I can find anything else.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks. i'm trying to get it to GA status (hopefully). if you want to help further, it would be great. Lucia Black (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime features in magazines?

I saw your message on WT:ANIME. Would you happen to have any features about Sonic X (you'd be looking about '03-'05, or a little later if they're from outside Japan) or any of the Digimon seasons? Tezero (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep a look out.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found anything yet? Tezero (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet but if I come across any useful articles while going through them I'll let you know.Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dandy Sephy! Saw you message on WP:Anime's talk page :) Would you happen to have the August 2006 issue of Newtype? There's a review (or some kind of article?) on The Law of Ueki in it. There's another article or review in the May 2006 issue too. Can you verify this? I would love to use those reviews or articles to expand the article. ごだい (会話) 05:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a very short review in Aug issue of NTUSA. I don't have the may issue but will check the Jan and Mar issues later.Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ごだい (会話) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mystery of Mamo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NTV and Sixth sense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

thank you for the wonder Swan info. do you happen to know what issue number that retro gamer is and the ISSN number? Also, thers a smidge i couldn't make out on "sales", u think u can quote it in my talkpage for me? Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did put the issue number in the read me, but it was 126. The issn is 1742-3155. The bit cut off just says that "it actually did much better than most gamers think" and that "sources generally agree" it sold 3.5m WS 1.1m being the Color. The rest of the box is on the scan. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]