User talk:Ryulong

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.

Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.

I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.

I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.

My local time: May 2024 21 Tuesday 9:18 pm EST
Archives
2—6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06 10/06 11/06 12/06 1/07 2/07 3/07 4/07 5/07 6/07 7/07 8/07 9/07 10/07 11/07 12/07 1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 1/09 2/09 3/09 4/09 5/09 6/09 7/09 8/09 9/09 10/09 11/09 12/09 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 1/11 2/11 3/11 4/11 5/11 6/11 7/11 8/11 9/11 10/11 11/11 12/11 1/12 2/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12 1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13 1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15

---

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

---

Kamen Rider Double

How is it not a "Crime television series" when we see it to be the series element along with the likes of Detectives, mafia, and criminals.

Why not "Category:Police procedurals" instead? Fractyl (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's just a Kamen Rider show.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's "Kamen Rider Show" first and a "Category:Police procedurals" second. That's how these categories work, BUT ONLY if the element in question is present.Fractyl (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These categories are useless. They are just Kamen Rider shows. There is no need to divide them up as featuring Vampiric creatures, time travel, or crossovers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Though I think Kiva would more of a "Horror television series" at a general perspective.Fractyl (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's excessive categorization. The genre is not to be determined like that. It is just a Kamen Rider TV series.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't stop over show articles. What I'm suggesting is sensable categorization, because of the unique nature each show has. But as this is a serious topic worth, I'll set it up on WikiProject Tokusatsu.Fractyl (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go off of what they have on the Japanese articles and if there's a similar category here. I'll replace what I find.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's go for the shows, though I'm a bit surprised with Ryuki, but the character pages are another story that may be resolved at the WikiProject.Fractyl (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

They are all just Kamen Rider characters. None of them are vampires, none of them are vampire types, none of them are zombies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But last time I checked, Showa Riders 1, 2, V3, Riderman, X, Stronger, Sky, Super-1, ZX, BLACK/BLACK RX, and Shadow Moon are Cyborgs. And since Kuuga, the roles and background stories vary like Saga as a "Fictional Vampire Type".Fractyl (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't help find them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It does. Because I make sure "Kamen Rider characters" goes first as that's what they are, with the second category out of unique quality essential to the character.Fractyl (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to list them ones who were cyborgs as cyborgs, fine. Just don't list Amazon as a "feral child" or the part-Fangire characters in Kiva as vampires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AltGold

It's also very easy to remove the "blocked" text from the template when you do so. As an admin I assume when I see that template that someone else has already taken care of business. I have now made it blocked in fact as well as tag.

In the future, only tag accounts as blocked if they actually have been. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some templates have that as the default, and why bother tagging twice?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Future television removal at Kamen Rider Double

User:Powergate92 already replied to you on my talk page, but let me elaborate on that a bit. As I said in my edit summary, I removed the template according to its guidelines, especially the part that says "This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way". In the case of Kamen Rider Double, I didn't see any issues: The article's lead makes it clear that it is an upcoming show, the article itself isn't being edited heavily or changes rapidly, and there doesn't seem to be a big problem with unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL kind of material, either. So, all in all, the template merely says something that is already obvious, making it redundant. You seem to disagree, so I'd be curious why you think the article needs the template. --Conti|✉ 09:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply used to the template being used on articles for future television series and it serves as a big "HEY, NOT EVERYTHING MIGHT BE RIGHT HERE" message. Although I do see the point at the guidelines that it is meant for articles which are not as extensively sourced and whatnot as we've done at Kamen Rider Double. It also serves the purpose of being able to get rid of the template and category at the same time. Also, I kind of ignore what Powergate92 does.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's explicitly not what the template is for. We don't do disclaimers in articles, that's what the general disclaimer is for. The future templates are counterintuitive, and I suppose all these templates prolly need a better name to make it more clear that we are not supposed to add a template on each and every article that has information about the future. Anyhow, would you still object to me removing the template again now? --Conti|✉ 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Perhaps all of these templates should just be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. There doesn't seem to be a proper way to do that, tho. Nominating one of these templates results in keep !votes because not all other future templates have been nominated as well, nominating all templates results in keep !votes because TfD is "not the right venue" for such a general discussion. So instead I'm actually applying the guidelines and engage people on talk pages about the issue. People can't just say "Keep! I like!" on their talk pages, they have to use actual arguments there. ;-) --Conti|✉ 10:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So clearly you begin a centralized discussion at wherever all of these templates can be fully discussed to discuss their possible deprecation and elimination of the templates from the project. Seems to be much more effective than pushing guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Future about the guidelines, I invite everyone to participate there when I remove a future template anywhere, I started an RfC, but it seems that most people simply don't care one way or the other. I considered the guidelines to be a compromise, as the template might be useful in some cases (mostly when the article isn't making it obvious that it's talking about a future event). Another try at a centralized discussion might be a good idea, tho, it just seems pretty hard to get people to actually comment. --Conti|✉ 10:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese

Is there a reason all of yours and Seansoo3's edits are to directly translate everything on the English Wikipedia into Vietnamese, including images?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my English very bad, please say again and slower! Thank--Lê (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am Vietnamese--Lê (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you only take English language articles and make them Vietnamese language articles at vi.wikipedia?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

May I please upload the Image of Chinomanako Diend Form please. I got a good picture it's not from a magazine either. please. AlienX2009 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo Shadow Moon

Alright, first I just want to say that I found 2 different pictures of what may be Neo Shadow Moon. the first one, "Neo Shadow Moon 1" which looks like the original except he's redder it may be photoshopped but who knows. and the second one (YouTube search "Gackt as a Rider") is not a drawing but a real costume, more scary looking and looks something like shadow moon with a Kamen Rider's mask. the second picture shows that it may be a tie with All Riders vs. Great Shocker. 1. looks exactly like Shadow Moon, 2. He is sitting in the chair witch looks exactly like the chair of Great Shocker, 3. There is a mask of a Kamen Rider not from a Heisei era but from a Showa era. I'm just saying it may be possible. AlienX2009 (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a photoshop and the video shows a Shadow Moon Super Imaginative Chogokin figure. There is no such thing as "Neo Shadow Moon". THe movie solely features "Shadow Moon" and no other name is given. Stop believing the shit you find on YouTube.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Point taken about the indentation, that's a bad habit I'm trying to get rid of: I agree it's unnecessary to add them when it's the same person making consecutive comments (esp OP). That said, while it's fine to archive comments at any point, it's rude to outright delete them as here. There are 'hide' functions (collapsible navboxes default collapsed) which you can surround stuff like that with so it doesn't clutter the view. If you'd like I could add that around all my comments so that they don't take up more than a single line unless you choose to read them.

I'll say this: I disagree, I don't think it's bad. People seem 'determined' but I don't see any determination actually happening through any interaction. Redirecting pages to notable places is good: I expand redirects when I find more people with the same name. It is not my responsibility to research every plausible person with the name and create a disambiguation page. If you know more than one person with a name: change it into a disambig. Kite criticizes me for changing redirects to disambigs, here I'm criticized for the opposite: can you two determine which you want? As for english names: they're not random combinations, they're methods in which people may be referred to which have no other use and so are put for them. If these people are not notable: then they shouldn't even be listed on the cast list, because this is saying they are not notable. Semi-notable people have lists instead of full articles. As for deleting the ANI responses: not acceptable. I'll address that there, but thank you for notifying me. Do you have the authority to do that though? I'm restoring them, if you've a complaint of people addressing comments on a topic addressed to him then please file it with a mod. All comments there are about me: so I'll reply to them. Tyciol (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various users who are finding your edits concerning redirects bad and unhelpful to the project as a whole. I went through the entirety of your contributions for the month of July, searched through all of the redirects you made, and deleted any that were for real people or consisted solely of given names and surnames.

Your expansions to disambiguation pages are also unhelpful. But I'm not going to go into extensive detail there. Black Kite and I have worked hard trying to clean up the mess you made across the project. Turning Battle Net from a redirect into a disambiguation page was bad. Taking everything on a disambiguation page and making them into redirects to articles not about the person is also bad.

Notability is not an issue. The issue is that for people who did not have pages on them, you simply made redirects. For cast lists which had red links, you made them redirects to the cast list. If they are on the cast list, that means they had a major role in the film. That does not mean that the one film is their only claim to fame. There is no use in turning red links on one article into redirects to the same article.

In short: don't make redirects any more and don't edit disambiguation pages anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware people find it bad+unhelpful, and I am concerned with why they find it this way. You don't seem to be concerned with reading my reply though (deleting it outright) so you missed my alternative suggestion regarding WikiProjects and lists. These deletions are being done behind the scenes and without record so I have no way of addressing these attacks, there's no record of what I added nor my editing summaries where I sometimes included abbreviated explanations of why where it was pertinent. My expansions to disambiguations were helpful: I alphabetized it and added more detail where available. People who are not notable enough to receive a page (as many of these may be) can receive mention as a reference as a cast member. It is not my responsibility to individually research the notability of all these actors. If you think they are: expand the redirect into an article. You claim this is bad, but read the intro to WP:RFD, expanding redirects into articles is encouraged. This would apply both to creating a biographical article or to creating a disambig, or to expanding or improving a disambig. Tyciol (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Making lists of marginally notable people is a bad idea, as is taking red links and simply redirecting them back to the article they were found on. There does not need to be a redirect or a working link for every single thing on Wikipedia. Just leave the red links. If the individual becomes notable later on, then they get a full article instead of a shitty redirect.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yuchun

Yeah I noticed that recent one (most I assume are not on the list since they were pounced on) and posted my objection about it on Talk:Yuchun. Other people sharing the name certainly means it should not REMAIN a redirect: it should be upgraded into a disambiguation list. You said you could find other people: me too. So if you care about it then why not do it yourself? There are many unique names which other people do not share. This applies to many fictional characters, writers make up last names. Similarly, many performing artists and athletes invent unique names. It's unrealistic to expect someone to research every word they come across to see if it refers to something else. If I recognize it as something with a common use then I certainly will disambiguate. Otherwise: if someone else notices, they should disambiguate. The thing is, when I make rounds directing things, I inevitably return to some of the same words and upgrade a redirect I created into a disambiguation, or potentially into a small article. This is a method of researching references to words and to individuals. Basically: deleting is a step backward. It does not further the mission of disambiguating the word which you yourself have admitted should be done since other people have it. I am not saying it should remain a redirect: upgrade them wherever necessary. This is a much better progressive use of time. If a first step is not taken, a disambiguation page may never come to be. There's no list of pages which need it, initiating articles to direct to show that the word exists at all is the first step. Tyciol (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's no use to have a disambiguation list. Just have it a red link. Making everything a redirect or a disambiguation list is turning Wikipedia into a freaking search engine and not an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not see the use in disambiguation lists: but they're common for all names and I assume encouraged. If you are opposed to this, instead of picking on tiny lists, why not state your objects to List of people with surname Smith or William Smith even. Are these useful, and if so, why would disambiguation of other names not be just as useful? I don't understand the analogy of this being a search engine, since there's one on the left. I share your frustration with the state of many disambigs, but that's why I try to improve them (sectioning similar references, alphabetizing, brief clarifying description of entry, etc) so that it looks more encyclopedic and is more thorough than a section of links.

As for Takeshi Kobayashi: yes, he's a lyricist. Someone typing his name into Wikipedia would have no idea about that though, because there's no article. That's why I redirected it to Haruka Ayase's page. She is related to him: her article says he wrote lyrics for her. I had no information as to whether or not he is notable in any regards beyond doing that. For many people: their claim to fame is merely doing something for someone else. You have knowledge that he is more than this: then that qualifies for upgrading the redirect into an article about him! Be bold! New users who made something about him would probably be squelched before you or I could help save their budding article, however since you have the know-how on article format, you can make something not easily squashed by those who would ignore the notability of Japanese pop lyricists.

Asakeshi is a shortening (portmanteau) of Asakura Takeshi. Black Kite deleted this, as you can see, but previous to that I had redirected it to Kamen Rider Ohja (where you can see this shortened form currently redirects). This clearly illustrates a problem with how other editors are responding to your complaint: this deleted the name of the main a major character of the Ohja Kamen Ryuki series (Takeshi Asakura is Ohja's true identity). This is why I have asked for BK's cooperation in reverting all these actions so they can be properly reviewed, they are obviously being assumed as negative when clearly ones like redirecting Asakura Takeshi are perfectly fine. If you take issue with the portmanteau that's fine (pms are a sticky issue, not everyone thinks they are notable). I have also noticed you gravitating to cursing a couple times, I have avoided doing that despite my own consternations, so please reciprocate. Tyciol (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know who Ohja is, and he has never been called "Asakeshi". This is relegated to solely J-pop people, not fictional characters. I'm tagging more redirects for deletion for all the reasons I have told you and you should stop making them unless they are for fictional characters and they are clearly mentioned in the fictional character lists. I also want four sentence replies from you instead of five paragraph essays.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, I find the objections to the portmanteau more reasonable (please don't ignore how ridiculous it was getting Black Kite to delete the guy's real name though). Part of redirects is potential typos and stuff. Just like someone might mispel a word, they sometimes merge words by accident. In cases where someone could easily slur it I thought it would be a harmless thing to do. Oddly enough it does seem to be a real name, but not one of any notability, if it does become so later on that could be added of course. Anyway, if you want to discuss J-Pop people only that's cool, but in that case, target ones of known J-Pop stars. In which case: if they are known, I'm still not sure why (if you think they deserve articles) why they aren't being made. I lack translation ability to bring over WPJ content, so establishing notability as I stumble across it is really the only way I know how.

Basically, you seem frustrated with how I jump from one name to another. The reason I do that is because I think it's the first step. Widening name pages into disambig pages (or creating into an article on a person) is the next step. It's also one I don't feel able to do alone, as articles are generally cooperative efforts. New editors would probably share this apprehensiveness: so even if we can get a stub going, I really think that would be much more encouraging for newbies to edit than a red link which would be doomed for snipping. New editors are not aware with how quickly articles get assaulted for notability and references and can get wiped off the map in less than a week, which might be how long it takes them to come back and see how their work is evolving. Tyciol (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you want an example of how your redirects are bad? No one is ever going to look up "Kamen Ryuki" for Kamen Rider Ryuki. Don't make any more redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't know that, nor do I understand how you know everything people won't (or will?) search for in the future.. For fictional series and characters people often shorten the names to something more easy to remember. Do you really think, for example, that people type out Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Kai or Akaneiro ni Somaru Saka every single time they refer to that series? Shortened forms are common and predictable. Also please read WP:HOUND (WP:TE could also apply), WP:ALLCAPS (it seems like you're shouting) & WP:NOEDIT (you've been telling me not to edit progressively expansive categories of things, please maintain suggesting ways to improve editing). Tyciol (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kamen Ryuki" is an implausible typo. Stop making redirects. You're just making more garbage for the rest of us to clean up. I know what I'm doing. You clearly do not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects have purposes besides correcting typos. It is not a mispelling: it is an ommission. People omit words in memory, that's why thisi s useful. I will not stop making redirects, and as above: stop telling me to WP:NOEDIT. I had a positive image of how you helped to create an article for the actress in the past, it is unfortunate that cooperative creative attitude has changed into this destructive antagonistic one. This is not garbage: they are useful, and they are seeds for new information and they help guide people to information. The only reason you dub it 'garbage' is because of this reliance on red links and preference to destroy contributions instead of adding to them to add to disambiguation. This is a biased attitude expressing disinclination towards disambiguation pages, this is against the consensus of Wikipedia where disambiguation pages have found many uses. Tyciol (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The extensive amount of redirects you made using common names to esoteric uses is the issue. Wikipedia is not a search engine, which is what your edits have turned it into.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation indexes and redirects for synonymous terms or references are not equivilent to a search engine. This is not at all how a search engine works: it is an encyclopedia. If you read the index at the back of any encyclopedia it clearly does disambiguate different articles about things sharing the same name. Like if you look up 'cancer' it will list the various forms of cancer underneath it. That's not a search engine. Tyciol (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have said all I can on the matter. Multiple users have now said that your creation of these redirects are more harmful than helpful to Wikipedia. I've done my best to explain why I think it is, because of your misinterpretations of notability and disambiguation policies. Any further discussion of this subject should take place at WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue you have more to say on this, however please don't try arguing ad populum with me. Even if that logic were applicable for settling a disagreement: now multiple users have also said that there are helpful redirects. Considering how few have actually been reviewed, I doubt statistics have been compiled on whether the majority are good or bad. You have certainly explained certain situations, and I attempted to converse about those. In your haste to settle that disagreement rapidly you also attacked many much more useful redirects, and that is hard to overlook. I agree it would be good to have the conversation there though, since it was your idea you can make any replies about this there, I like to leave something I say about someone where it is easily viewable by the one who wants to read it, so I'll end on that tone. Tyciol (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoring speedy tags

Hi. Perhaps in the heat of the moment you've forgotten that this is not done? An admin has declined this speedy. Your next step is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So many XFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification

to make you aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ryulong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)