Talk:Fushigi Yûgi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Byakko Seishi merge[edit]

I've proposed that all of the Byakko Seishi be merged into one article - you can contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#Byakko_Seishi_Merging -Malkinann (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of this article, including the excessive character articles, is already on the project's to do list. See my fuller reply there for an explanation on part of the reason for the delay. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon's success helping FY[edit]

In this article, Yang, Sandy (2000-10-25). "Girl Power Make Up—The Beginning of Shoujo in the US". Akadot. Digital Manga, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-18. , a VIZ employee says that he reckons Fushigi Yuugi was successful because of Sailor Moon. D'you think this is relevant to the FY article? -Malkinann (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure for here (thinking), but certainly is relevant to SM :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging Character Pages[edit]

I've noticed a lot of character pages, which have limited information or mostly plot summary centered around the character named, and their statistics. Most of these pages could be merged into the character page for Fushigi Yuugi rather than standalone pages, which could eventually be deleted. This applies not only to the characters of the original Fushigi Yugi series, but also the few that have sprung up for Genbu Kaiden. (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All the character pages have now been merged into List of Fushigi Yūgi characters. Most of them lacked the notability to stand on their own. If there are disagreements, please discuss before trying to remake the page. A22 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Fushigi Yūgi Eikoden[edit]

I have tagged Fushigi Yūgi Eikoden for merging into this article. There is no valid reason for that OVA to have a standalone article that I can see. It is nothing but a mass of plot with one minor line of reception. Plot summary goes in the episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i say it should be merged. --Refuteku (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we merge it now, it's been quite some time? --Refuteku (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ao no Fūin link in See also[edit]

So exactly what in WP:SEEALSO precludes the addition of links to similar series? One of the main points of Wikipedia is that it allows linking to relevant and related material. As both of these series are based on the same legends, I don't see an issue here. AnmaFinotera obviously does. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - putting the manga series in the article on the legends themselves is often regarded as "popculture/fictioncruft", especially as it's not a relatively discreet "See also" but rather an indepth original research analysis of the legend and the manga series. (see, for example, Talk:Imperial Regalia of Japan.) However, it is possible to remember either FY or Ao no Fuin as "that series that's based on this four constellation-animals legend" - and as FY is the more popularly known of the two, it's possible that people end up at Fushigi Yuugi when they meant to go to Ao no Fuin. I think being based on the same legends covers the guideline's need for relevancy of the link. --Malkinann (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate book page[edit]

I really don't see the need for a new article for the books. But if they doesn't look so good here they could always be moved to where the volumes are listed.--Refuteku (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally, with that many volumes they would be split. The main reason they haven't, though, is that no one here can really summarize them, so they sit in limbo without the potential to become a proper list. They are not manga volumes, though, so they really wouldn't be appropriate there either. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing and Mislabeled[edit]

The production section is weird. It doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the production of the manga or why it was created and subsequent anime, etc. And there is a character list missing. Could someone add that and out links to a character section? Also reception is very POV... It's all "Fushigi Yuugi was bad." It should be more balanced.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Pop Culture Shock vol. 9

--KrebMarkt 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

EX --Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fushigi YūgiFushigi Yûgi — This is the actual, official English release name, per the covers of the books themselves. Per WP:NAME, we should use it, not the editor preferred version of Fushigi Yūgi and it should go under the full-title, rather than a partial. Previous discussions have claimed that "ū" is correct and that Viz just miswrote it, however, Viz Media IS the official licensor of the title, and they get to choose what macron system is used, not Wikipedia editors. Per guidelines, even if it is "wrong", it is the official title and what should be used, same as it is not our place to correct a misspelling in any other book title. If consensus agrees, all sub-articles should also be moved to reflect the proper title. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Question the first: How does Chuang Yi (the other official English licensor) romanize it? If they go for ū or uu or even u (all possible style choices), we have some discretion here. (This can probably be easiest checked by the Madman edition, as they routinely import Singapore editions over North American when they have a choice.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Chuang Yi also uses Fushigi Yûgi: The Mysterious Play, with the û.[1] Ditto Madman Entertainment,[2], and UK's Gollancz[3]. Seems the English licensors are unanimous on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment why not just use Fushigi Yûgi ? It's shorter, and still uses the official diacritic. (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Because Fushigi Yûgi: The Mysterious Play is the official name per all of the English publishers. Fushigi Yûgi can redirect to the proper name, same as all the other spellings. The article text can generally just use Fushigi Yûgi but the article itself should have the full name along with the lead, similar to what is done with other longer titles, like Bambi, A Life in the Woods -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Article titles should be only as precise as is needed. Fushigi Yûgi is perfectly adequate title if there are no other articles with that title. See WP:PRECISION. --Mika1h (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that the full is needed to precision, as there are at least two Fushigi Yûgi sequels. This ensures the main article is at the first series name, not a generic one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, then if it is moved to the extended title, I suggest a "franchise" article be written at the short name. That would obviously split this page in two, since Eikoden information is here. (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
We generally do not do "franchise" articles. If the secondary series are not notable enough for their own articles, they are covered here per WP:MOS-AM, but the article is named for the primary work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Except in this case, there are more than one series with articles (ie. Fushigi Yūgi Genbu Kaiden), and WP:NOTPAPER. So a franchise article with Eikoden split onto it would work. (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, a franchise article would not work, nor would a split. Per the MoS, which I'm guessing you didn't read, sequels are covered in the original article unless they are significantly different, which neither of the other two are. One is a sequel, the other a prequel, with no significant differences warranting separate articles. Eikoden was merged per consensus because it couldn't support a valid article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with you on that. Eikoden has a new plot which wasn't part of the manga, different production information, and a different reception (in terms of how much reviewers seemed to like it). It also would have enough individual notability to pass the notability guidelines. It seemed to me that the reason it was merged was because the article was all uncited plot summary and original research. However, I think a fine artcile could be written on it if someone took the time to do so. Also, it looked like only two people voted for merging, which I wouldn't really call a consensus even though there were no objections. Calathan (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify my above comment since I realized the word "that" in the first sentance is vague, I'm not suggesting that I think a series article should be created, or that Eikoden should be split now, just that Eikoden could support an article if someone put work into writing one. Calathan (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No change - Unless another topic needs to be located at Fushigi Yūgi, it should stay here. It's concise, easy to find, and recognizable, while being technically accurate (which is what WP:NAME suggests. Wikipedia generally favors common names over official names, I don't see a compelling reason to move it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Except, of course, that it is not the "common" name. ALL of the official English publishers use Fushigi Yûgi, not Fushigi Yūgi. And WP:NC-BK clearly indicates that we should use the official name, not some fan preferences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In English, û == ū == u. I'm not aware of any romanization of Japanese which uses the circumflex. Can you provide a source which isn't bound by the ability or otherwise of the publisher to type a macron on their keyboard? (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the Japanese title, we are talking about the books actual, official title. ALL of the English publishers are using the circumflex. Whether people think it is a proper "romanization" is irrelevant. Per conventions, media works that have been released in English should use their actual official English titles, irregardless of whether some people think all of the publishers were wrong for using it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSTM, we don't follow anyone else's typographical conventions. The circumflex is not part of the title, it's part of the typography. We very explicitly do not follow a publisher's typographical preference (hence E. E. Cummings). Remember that in the dark days before Wikipedia, it was common to denote vowel length with a circumflex since most people did not use a character set which contained the macron. Even within the last few years, there were still articles here using SAMPA rather than IPA. Provide a source which makes it clear that they haven't used the circuflex to get around some limitation, otherwise we shouldn't be using the circumflex any more than Toys R Us gets a backward R, Motorhead gets a heavy metal umlaut, or House of Leaves gets the word "Leaves" in blue. (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
About whether there is a romanization of Japanese that uses the circumflex, the Kunrei-shiki romanization system uses the circumflex (assuming that the Wikipedia article is accurate). Calathan (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. In any case, Kunrei-shiki is not widely used, and Wikipedia uses Hepburn. (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning to support. We should be accurate and cohesive so we should use the official English title. It would be an incoherence if we stick with official English naming for characters names and locations and not for the series title. Thanks to the redirect it will be transparent for users consulting the article. --KrebMarkt 09:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to Fushigi Yûgi, without the subtitle. WP:NC-BK#Subtitles makes it clear that the subtitle is only included in the page name when it is needed for diambiguation purposes (and only when the title is short). I don't think there is any need to have the full title in order to differentiate between this and Fushigi Yūgi Genbu Kaiden, as people looking for that series would be unlikely to expect it to be at the name Fushigi Yûgi. I do think that the diacritic should be corrected to the official version (and that also should be done with Fushigi Yūgi Genbu Kaiden). Calathan (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing it further, I agree and have dropped the subtitle from the move suggestion. This would reflect what was also done with Kare Kano which was released as Kare Kano: His and Her Circumstances -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
So we go toward that direction then. --KrebMarkt 19:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The choice of macron vs. circuflex is a typographical one rather than one of spelling - that puts it within our remit. We don't generally change the formatting of a title just because a creator wants it that way (may very well be because they can't type it properly with the bar) - our article on Spinal Tap doesn't place a diaresis over the "n" in normal use. Our standard on rendering these is to use the bar macron, so a bar marcron should be used. WP:MOSJP: long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. Searching is not an issue, since someone looking for the English title will invariably have typed "Yugi" for the second word, and redirects can take care of the rest. (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is one of spelling. This is not an issue of a common word and arguments over how they are spell. This is the actual English title of the series, and MOSJP doesn't apply in this case. WP:NC-BK is the guideline that applies, not a manual of style, and it is very clear - the official English title is to be used if the book has been released in English. This is why we use Tramps Like Us instead of Kimi wa Pet, White Dog instead of Chien Blanc, Kare Kano instead of Kareshi Kanojo no Jijō, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the argument that "Fushigi Yûgi" is the English title can possibly stand up. English is diacritic-agnostic, by virtue of not using any natively. I see some references rendering the second word as "Yuugi", and not one of the references cited on the pages uses the circumflex while using a macron elsewhere. There's a clear conflict between Viz deciding to use a circumflex, presumably because whoever did it was using a keyboard with no way of entering it or a character set which doesn't include the macron (Latin-1, for example), and our convention which states to use the macron. "It's the official spelling/formatting/capitals/diacritics/whatever" is a non-argument. (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Viz is not the only one using it. ALL of the English publishers have used it. And yes, that IS the official English title. That does not mean it can't use a diacritic. That would be like claiming that a title that throws in a Spanish word is no longer the English. Viz, Madman, Gollancz, and Chuang Yi ALL wrote it the same way. They are the ones who decide what the the title of this work is, not Wikipedia editors who have issues with it using the circumflex and are falsely claiming that Viz somehow just couldn't type the right symbol (how do you know?). The conventions do not say that we can change the titles of media works for no reason. These are not trademarks, they are titles, which is why they have different guidelines.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's the point I'm putting to you. I'm asking for verifiable evidence that the circumflex isn't stylized typography or isn't a result of keyboard troubles. Absent this, there is no reason to support this move other than "That's how they do it", and it's already been pointed out to you that we couldn't give a rat's beihnd. (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. While I think the editors at Viz are crazy (I could go on for hours about all the really stupid things they do with their licenses), this is the official English title for the manga and the anime which therefore makes it the most common title in English (regardless of fandom's preference for something else). Both WP:MOS-JA and WP:NC indicate that the most common title should be used as the first choice. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't see the difference between ū and û as being any different than arguments over putting titles in all caps. There is no functional difference, and Wikipedia MOS prefers ū, so we default to that regardless of cosmetic choices made by the English edition. Unless you're going to go argue for moving Bleach to BLEACH, I don't see how the discussion is at all justified. Doceirias (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
BLEACH is a stylization, not a difference between circumflex and macrons. And no, the MOS prefers the official, English title, which uses û. MOS-JP does not override the naming conventions, nor does it say to disregard an official title because some feel it is wrong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference between a circumflex and a macron IS a stylization, so the same principle applies. Doceirias (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So you are arguing that the macron and the chapeau are both stylizations, therefore by MOS:TM they should both be removed... leaving Fushigi Yugi... (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. The difference is what's being discussed here. The current title is very obviously a romanization of the Japanese original, given that neither "Fushigi" nor "Yugi" are words in English. Had the publishers chosen to use "uu", there might be a valid argument here, since "u" and "uu" are different in English. However, they didn't, so there isn't. I have no objection in principle to adding "The Mysterious Play", but we don't use the circumflex for a long vowel in Japanese transcriptions. I also find the idea of an order of precedence in our guidelines nonsense, though if it must be entertained, there is a long history of empirical evidence that our MOS does override the naming convention, as can be seen at any relevant move. See also WP:OFFICIAL and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:MOSTM requires that editors "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English". I think a convincing case has been made that the style used by the licensors is commonly used in English. WP:MOSTM is mostly about preventing us from having to follow fancy styles like all-caps for trademarks; I can hardly view the usage of a circonflexe as such a fancy style. WP:MOSJP says that diacritics should be dropped in cases where the spelling without diacritics has entered common English usage; it's reasonable to continue from there that where a spelling with a different diacritic has entered common usage, which may well be the case here. Ucucha 09:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Given that neither word is English, one can hardly describe either styling as "resembling standard English". MOSTM is about preventing us from having to follow fancy styles like depicting a long vowel using a circumflex. It's patently not reasonable to infer a change in diacritic from MOSTM - it explicitly says they can be dropped, to go one step further is on par with reductio ad absurdam. Every single shred of relevant naming and formatting rules is in opposition to this move, and nobody has provided any firm evidence to suggest why we should not follow them in this case. In particular, I'm looking for evidence that the title hasn't been rendered this way because someone up the food chain couldn't get a macron, or because someone misread someone's handwriting. That a certain song title was misheard as "Like a Pitcher of Water" to the point where the sheet music at the recording session had thewrong name doesn't actually change the name. Unless someone can proide hard evidence that the circumflex is not simply the way someone has chosen to romanize the name (which others have then decided to follow blindly), there is no reason in logic or policy to support this move. (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I would argue that the origin of the name is irrelevant; the licensor has chosen to use the proposed title in English, and we are not to judge whether their motives in doing so are good (cf. Nihonjoe above). If the standard way of referring to Fushigi Y–gi in English is with the circonflexe, then, yes, that is "standard English". Ucucha 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The choice of the licensor is neither here nor there, as they are not arbiters of how Wikipedia renders titles. I also fail to see how any rendering of a Japanese name that has not been absorbed into English (contrast kendo, Tokyo, etc.) could be judged as "standard English". "Standard English" means just that - it does not mean "whatever people are doing with it". It isn't for us to decide that they have it wrong, equally it isn't for us to decide that they have it right. What matters is that the proposed title doesn't conform to our guidelines, and "that's the way they do it" is a non-argument. (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment so what is the verdict? Rename or no rename? Thanks --KrebMarkt 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if an admin is available to close, since if consensus is considered to move, an admin would have to anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


User:Calathan wrote on my talk-page:

I see that you've tried to change a sentance in Fushigi Yûgi to not use passive voice a few times now. I think the wording you are trying to use just sounds unnatural. While passive voice should be avoided when the actor in a sentance is the important part of the sentance, in this case the Fushigi Yûgi manga is the focus of the article and the focus of this sentance, so it makes more sense to word the sentance in passive voice. Also, it seems unnatural to say that Shōjo Comic published the manga, as Shogakukan in the publisher (i.e. Shogakukan published Fushigi Yûgi in Shōjo Comic). I also noticed that you listed WP:Weasel as a reason not to use passive voice, but WP:Weasel was just about making who did things clear when it would otherwise be unclear, and doesn't apply to this case where who is doing the publishing is obvious. Calathan (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights: we evidently have slightly varying views about what "just sounds unnatural" - so let's leave personal opinions aside and talk about some of the technicalities of style. - We can agree that the article focuses on the Fushigi Y�gi manga - but that doesn't mean that we should make the series the subject of each and every sentence. That would sound strange! - In the lede at the moment the first three sentences begin with that subject, so providing a varied style would suggest that we can change one - and in the process avoid a passive construction. - WP:WEASEL has changed a lot in recent weeks, but at the time I [�gi&diff=348017748&oldid=347297526 referenced] it on 2010-03-06 it stated: 'although the passive voice is syntactically correct, Strunk and White, in The Elements of Style (1918), recommend that it be used sparingly, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice.' Moreover, I don't find it intrinsically obvious in the article text who did the publication. One would need to know to scan the side-box, and even that doesn't spell out in a complete sentence that Shogakukan has done all the publishing throughout the history of the work(s). We can quite reasonably highlight the publisher in the article as the topic of the second sentence. - I take your point about the difference between the publisher and the publication-vehicle: we can make all that clearer and more comprehensive by adopting your suggested explanation and writing something like "Shogakukan published Fushigi Y�gi in Shōjo Comic in its original serialized form from May 1992 through June 1996." -- (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvement time[edit]

I've removed the unsourced section from the article. Specifically: "Megumi Nishizaki gained the inspiration to write the novel Eikou Den after a meeting with Watase and hearing her proposal of a story-idea in which Miaka gathers the re-incarnated Suzaku Seven. However, Nishizaki regarded Miaka's story as complete, so she invented a new character, Mayo Sakaki, intending her as someone whom people love to hate and to whom they can relate. Many regard Mayo as an evil type of person, but she is very soft on the inside[citation needed]. Nishizaki saw Mayo as representing all of the weakness in human character. She appears single-minded to the point of recklessness, impulsive, jealous, and bitter - but at heart she is a good person. Nishizaki points out that due to all of the hardships she has faced, she has become very jaded, and it takes meeting the Suzaku Seven to realize her innocence again."

This seems to contain some OR and it is contentious. I've removed it for now, I need to work on other parts of the article to get it up to snuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Manga section[edit]

Corrected wording referring to a table not present on this page; wording used was same/similar to wording on the "List of Fushigi Yûgi chapters" page, where the referenced table is present. T3021 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fushigi Yûgi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fushigi Yûgi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)