User talk:G.A.S/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The following has been moved here from the talk page on 19 March 2009 and 30 June 2010.

Love Hina

On the assessment for Love Hina, you said it was a B "barely" and gave some examples of areas to expand. No problem, I'd like to expand them myself. However on the talk page of the article, in response to the clueless user you said "so getting an article to B class is an achievement by itself -- it means that the article is but a copy-edit short of GA class". Really I'm after a clarification, were you referring to the article in question or B class in general?

As for the article itself, I'm not convinced there is enough verifiable material to actually expand the sections you pointed out (certainly not in english). The article wasn't very helpful, and online translation tools aren't known for their clarity if I can even find reliable Japanese references. Unless you know of a way to translate scans or how to write Kanji stroke by stroke on a computer to enter it into a translation tool?

The article needs a copyedit and probably a peer review anyway, but if the article still needs expanding, it seems a little pointless to get them done now Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Q1. B-class in general, I meant " little as a copy edit...". Usually a peer review would provide pointers for improvement as well.
Q2. Unfortunately not. Some of the project members with a knowledge of Japanese might be able to help (try asking at WT:ANIME).
Q3. True. These are only useful when you feel that you have done as much as you can, and need someone else to look at tne article.
Regards, G.A.Stalk 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Back again :P I've done some of the edits you asked for in the assesment, aside from tv special summary's and basic information about post tv broadcast, theres very little left to be added to the article. I'm now looking at GA and how to get there over the next few weeks or months, and I'm looking for suggestions on where else to improve. I know the Video games and Album sections could do with being less "dry" and "boring" to read, but after that nothing is sticking out as needing improving (aside from a copyedit). Your thoughts are much appreciated as I'd like to make peer review as smooth as possible rather then have it rip it to shreds :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, Collectonian has given me her thoughts here Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have read Collectonian's comment, and agree with her. I will try to give the article a proper review a.s.a.p, but this could take a few days. One thing that I do see is that the character list is currently provided as a dictionary list. This is sub-optimal as the article already has a List of characters – it should preferably be re-written in prose/paragraph format (Though I recommend merging it to the plot section—see bullet 7 here, and the subsequent discussion and changes to the MOS). Regards, G.A.Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Don't worry about another review, you and Collectonian have given me plenty to work on for now. I think the character section can wait until the other things have been tackled (for various reasons), the links were very handy Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you...

Know Japanese? If you do I would appreciate it if you translate this news article for me. It has information which I think might be very important to Kumi Koda's article. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Replied on my talk page.じんない 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Long overdue

Though I'm not a coordinator, I boldly assume the duty and honor to reward you for your contributions to Tag & Assess 2008.

Goldenwiki 2.png 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 Golden Wiki. You are an example to us all.
-- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sakura barnstar ribbon.png
For tagging and assessing over 1,000 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this BarnSakura.
-- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar.png
WMBarnstar ribbon.png
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.
-- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-stripe3.svg 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.
-- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore...

Barnstar anime manga 2.png
Barnloli rib.png
For coordinating Tag & Assess 2008, I further present you with this Anime and manga BarnLoli. Without you, the drive would not have been possible.
-- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ^_^
G.A.Stalk 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

trigun merges

I cam across Trigun while scanning through the proposed merges. From what I can tell the merge was proposed only for the game, which has long since been merged. Is the tag there for anything else or it it now redundant? Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets see... *Off to my contributions at the time*. Trigun: The Planet Gunsmoke was the only official proposal at the time. More articles (Vash the Stampede, Millions Knives, Nicholas D. Wolfwood, Gung-Ho Guns) also existed at the time, and were since merged to Trigun characters. I have removed the tag. Thanks for following that up! G.A.Stalk 04:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

I finally finally finally redid Ichigo's section, adding in sourcing and expanding it out. You want to give it a once over to clean it up and make sure it isn't too detailed, etc? I think with that done, it will be almost ready for a peer review after the smattering of "citation needed"s are taken care of. I'm gonna see if I can find the ep refs for those, though if any are minor details anyway, maybe better to just remove. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I will add it to my to do list, I realised that I actually finish edits/cleanup/discussions that way:) Though I will probably only take a look tomorrow.
Would you mind having a look at Bubblegum Crisis Tokyo 2040#Episodes, specifically regarding the English airdate(s). I am unsure whether those sources are RS, but failed to come up with anything better. PS: You to uncomment the new list, it is still work in progress. That article is in such dire need of cleanup, but has no active editors. Any comments will help (And if you don't mind cleaning out the OR, that would be better. I am not so good at that yet; though once cleaned up, I can keep it that way.)
G.A.Stalk 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that has been seen as an acceptable source for English airdates as a last resort. :) And agreed on the need for clean not envy you the task ;-) I'll see if I can do a little clean up, though I haven't seen the series myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that happens if an article never had regular editors[1]. I also have reason to believe the summaries may be copyvio, but did not yet try to confirm it. G.A.Stalk 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, culled down the characters and tried to make less in-universe, tweaked the lead and removed the OR, added a source or two, cleaned up the infobox, and cleaned out the fan links. :-) The summaries may have been taken from the Wikia, though I haven't checked the dates to see which came first. Hopefully the rewrite takes care of any issue there. Hope that helps either way.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks:) G.A.Stalk 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think this would be a better source for the image? [2], in which case it should be re-uploaded, the one there is of better quality. Unfortunately the first DVD's cover does not do much for the article. G.A.Stalk 07:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a better image, if reuploaded and the FUR updated. Also, maybe look at the DVD complete collection image which appears to have all the major characters on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I did have a look at the complete collection, but it hardly shows any more than the existing image, not even the logo...:( I have updated the Fair Use Rationale, have a go at it if you like. It is times like this I wished Google had a feature to find all similar images, to try and trace this to the original source. G.A.Stalk 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. (and agreed on the "find all similar")-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't hurt to look past Google from time to time: -- Goodraise (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I did not know about that one. G.A.Stalk 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For a quick update, I've gone through everyone now except Ichigo and the Saint Rose Crusaders. On the latter, I'm not sure if it needs cutting down, since it is one paragraph per. I also left a note on the talk page about a possible solution on the refs. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already replied on the references... I will have to read through the article before replying to the other question. On a related note: some of the descriptions still include a lot of plot retelling; maybe it can be improved? Sephiroth BCR may also be able to give advice. G.A.Stalk 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try with the first 4 chapters (I used the English divisions since those are the volumes being sourced). The only bad thing is because Tokyopop combined four chapters in the first volume, the ref is used 29 times :P. Subsequent volumes shouldn't be as bad, though volume 2 also has all four chapters combined into one. Doing the first volume brought the references down from 191 to 168. I'll wait for your feedback before going on to the rest :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The high importance refs should stand out much clearer as this does make the list somewhat easier to scan through, 29 refs are quite a lot though. I would recommend continuing though. G.A.Stalk 05:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I've done Vol 2 now as well. The remaining volumes have the individual chapter divisions, so those will take a bit longer. Also cleaned up the first round to remove excessive instances and duplications, that brought it down to 20 uses, which looks a bit better. The volume 2 ref is used 16, which isn't too bad. Now down to 145 refs total. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Learning the ropes - a simple task

Greetings G.A.S

I am a long time anime and manga afficianado and want to help out with the contributions to the literature. I am new to working with wiki content. There is so much it is a tad overwhelming. I am working on learning small pieces at a time. Can you help me learn the ropes by pointing me to a simple task to work with. Sheshed (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Sheshed,
Let me first take the opportunity to welcome you WikiProject Anime and manga!
Let me secondly give you a few hints.
  • Shortcuts: You can usually take a guess at shortcuts if you require help or information, e.g. WP:CITE for citations, WP:IMAGE for the use of images, WP:ANIME for the project, WP:T for a tutorial, WP:CHEAT for a cheatsheet to Wikisyntax, etc.
  • Enjoy it! You should never have to feel like you have worn yourself out here. There is no time limit to do anything, though it helps to make a note if you want to get back to something (see #To Do above for my list).
Do what you like to do! You can help us in a number of ways (As all of these are in the broader scope of contributing to Anime and Manga, you would have to indicate what you like doing, as the scope is quite broad. I can then also point you in the right direction/to editors with similar interests).
  • Do you like to improve articles by cleaning them up, expanding them, or otherwise improving them?
  • Can you professionally copyedit articles (We have a dire need for copyeditors)?
  • or do you prefer to help in other ways? (Me, for instance, do not like working with/expanding articles; but like to be involved with more administrative work (e.g. WP:ANIME/ASSESS, WP:ANIME/TA (Now done), Template cleanup (Planning stage))
  • We also requite help in finding sources in Japanese, and/or translating such information.
G.A.Stalk 05:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A class revival

That happen here : WT:CWG ;)

I pointed out that small project man power wise can live without A rating but i still feel that a project like anime/manga should keep A for article to big to chew for just few editors alone in our case that would be probably some of our core articles like anime.

Feel free to contact whoever you think that may contribute to that prolonged brainstorming session --KrebMarkt 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the persons who participated in our previous discussion would be the parties to contact. I would therefore highly recommend moving this discussion to WT:ANIME as that would be the correct forum to revive A class for WP:ANIME.
Please refer to said discussion for background information (if you had not done so already). Another problem is that we do not really have A class candidates, except maybe for Naruto[3]. In the case of Anime, that would also require that all of the cleanup tags are fixed before we can even consider A-class. Even History of manga which - at face value - seems complete, cannot be A class, as the main editor recognises that it is not complete[4].
I would recommend notifying the guys at WT:ASSESS about this discussion as well. (Some of them seems to be aware of it.) G.A.Stalk 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Done with WT:Anime for WT:Assess others editors are taking care of it. --KrebMarkt 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! G.A.Stalk 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters poke

Any thoughts on what else this list needs before trying to FLC? The peer review gave a few suggestions, all followed, except I think the lead still needs rewriting. Any other thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look by tomorrow this time. :) G.A.Stalk 06:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Copy edit done:) Seems like the only remaining item is the lead... G.A.Stalk 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Almost a month later, I finally redid the lead. Want to give it a review/copy edit before attempting the FLC? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Lets see how it goes. :-) G.A.Stalk 06:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
FLC started. Hope its okay that I listed you as a co-nominator? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! hopefully this is one step further towards that elusive Featured topic candidate;-) G.A.Stalk 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, hopefully so :) I need to get back to fixing those summaries in the last one remaining, the episode list. Weee -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The FLC seems to be cursed with the usual silence...:( G.A.Stalk 12:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep...alas, there is a large backlog at the moment too. :( May poke the project if it stays quite another day or two. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
^_^ G.A.Stalk 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Woo hoo! Took us a year, but it was worth it :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
BarnSakura.png The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
Your assitance in taking List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters from a mess to a wonderfully written featured list! Couldn't have done it without you! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAA! Seeing that mess again made my eyes hurt (o.O) Thanks for the BarnSakura! Though you did most of the work:) G.A.Stalk 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work with the characters list you two G.A.S. Congratulations.Tintor2 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you:) G.A.Stalk 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Can you use the {{name of template}} method of listing the templates on this page instead of transcluding all of them? You are listing your sandbox in mainspace categories, which is not a good thing. Thanks! :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. The idea was to transclude them to help with cleanup, but it got stalled:(. We can view the previous version easily enough though. G.A.Stalk 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it in a while, having database errors now. G.A.Stalk 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. G.A.Stalk 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't want to be confusing people. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry for barging in...) Alternatively, you could fix the relevant templates to make them only add mainspace pages to the categories.
Example code:

  #if: {{NAMESPACE}}
  |[[Category:Name of desired category]]
Though I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to have navigational templates add pages to categories in the first place. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the cleanup is "stalled", I'm just being lazy about it (and G.A.S is busy IRL, as I soon will be). =) For the record, though, I'm currently sending small navboxes through TFD (currently waiting for the inevitable delete for {{Black Cat}} before I nom the next one; see User talk:Dinoguy1000/to-do#Templates and categories), while cleaning up individual navboxes as it strikes my fancy. And I'm majorly against using navboxes to categorize articles, since a navbox may be transcluded onto a page that shouldn't be categorized into whatever category the navbox is populating (as can be seen here). That being said, don't be surprised to see me switch the sandbox back to transcluding everything a time or two as cleanup progresses, just to see if there's anything still auto-categorizing. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be fine, search "{{tl|" and replace "{{" works quite well here:) Goodraise has a good idea as well, the project has a lot of templates. G.A.Stalk 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, this particular operation is simple enough to do even with Notepad's "Replace" function. =) As for Goodraise's suggestion, yes, such namespace detection (and subpage detection, for userspace templates *looks at userboxes*) should always be considered when a template adds categories. Unfortunately, most people who edit templates aren't aware of the potential problems, and even if they were, they wouldn't know how to fix it. So the best we can do is just to come in behind and clean them up. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa Article

Thanks for assessing the article. Aside from the lead section, are there other things that can be improved in the article in order for it to be B class?

--Stepusual (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem:
  • The article has very few inline citations in the Life, Early career, Directorial approach, Collaboration, Later films and Legacy sections.
  • You could rearrange the inline citations, further reading and documentaries to match the style in SS Pennsylvanian (being "References" and "Biography", see WP:CITESHORT and further considerations. A lot of the inline citations references those books anyway). This also means that the "Biography" section would have to use appropriate citation templates.
  • I do not like the embedded list in the influence section, but cannot give a better recommendation at this time. I would rather this section also say how each person was influenced by him.
Ps. If it is fine with you I would prefer moving this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Requests for assessment
Regards, G.A.Stalk 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page reformating

Give your previous involvement with this issue, I figured you may like to know about this discussion. (Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Reformatting) --Farix (Talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot even remember about this, but thanks for letting me know. G.A.Stalk 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes

From its PR earlier this month, it seems like the TMM episode list may be ready for FL. Can you think of anything else it might need? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(Un)fortunately, I cannot think of anything major right now. Minor items picked up:
  • Notes 1 and 18 should be translated (|trans_title=)
  • Ep 26 has a US airdate, but 24 and 25 does not
  • Ep 2: "Ryou and Keiichiro tell Ichigo that the creature she saw are parasitic aliens, called chimera animas" (singular vs plural)
  • "Ichigo tries to reach Masaya, showing him the bell collar, but its useless" (it is)
  • "Masaya comes to and finds a Ichigo lying beside him, dead." (remove)
  • "detransform" (de-tranforms ??, more than once)
  • "Kish arrives and steals the boy's spirit to creates a chimera anima" (create)
  • "While on a date with Masaya, Ichigo is distracted, imagining she is seeing Ryou, eventually learning it's Lettuce and Pudding spying on them, out of concern for Ichigo." (eventually learning that... are spying on them)
  • "discover the cocoon ,and" (spacing)
  • "While taking her home, he apologizes to her though doesn't say why.", (but does not)
  • "Kish tells the girls that Zakuro has betrayed them, then invites Zakuro to join them" (and then)
  • "Masaya begins glowing and tranforms" (transforms)
  • "mew aqua around a large large rock formation" (large)
  • "...Masyaa..." (Masya)
  • "They release all their chimera animas in order to distract the Mew Mews and the Blue Knight, then try to find Masaya but they are also unable to." (rewrite)
G.A.Stalk 23:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool...corrected all of those (as well as quite a few other contractions I that was a lot!). I'll probably start its FLC this weekend then :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
i think it should be fine if we can apply recommendations fairly quickly--I doubt there is much we can do until then. ;) G.A.Stalk 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool...FLC started :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Noted:) G.A.Stalk 05:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Last Exile episodes

Thanks for helping resolve the remaining issues on the FLN! I had to unexpectedly take care of some work this past week. Cheers! Arsonal (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that it would be best if the nomination did not stall.
Do consider the following recommendations per the reviewers (they were not necessary, but might help improve the list even further):
  1. Episode 2, "ridding himself of feeling ashamed" either needs to be rewritten or removed. Maybe he was "moved by the message"? Incidentally, I haven't seen any of these but, y'know, good faith and all that.
  2. Episode 4, "had" died. Also perhaps establish who they're hiding it from, i.e. "from her". You don't mention when Al wakes up, maybe it's not worth mentioning that she's unconscious, for concision's sake. "Wrecks" makes me think of knocking over dishes and tearing down wallpaper. If there are weapons involved I'd consider "attacks"
  3. Episode 18, "for fear of..."
  4. Is there a more specific link-target than Chess? Perhaps a section in that article? Or is there a List of chess terms?
  5. There may be good reasons not to, but I wonder whether the statement about chess moves at the end of each episode description might go first rather than last (jostling with the boundary, too). In any case, perhaps drop "Note:". [I agree with this—it makes sense to explain the title, and then follow with the episodes' events.]
—per FLC
Regards, G.A.Stalk 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan soundtracks

Any other changes I need for the list for structure? The width of the table is reduced and there doesn't appear to be any reception of any of the soundtracks anywhere in Japanese or English that would pass RS.Jinnai 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Already upgraded to B-Class.[5] ^_^ G.A.Stalk 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction

Given that you closed discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction are you also prepared to summarise any consensus and also work out what it means for Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? Hiding T 11:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will need me some time to work through all of the information—I should be able to do so over the weekend. G.A.Stalk 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. At this stage it seems that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) will remain an essay/proposal. Personally, I cannot see WP:FICT being adopted, nor being rejected. G.A.Stalk 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the summary. I don;t really know what will happen with FICT, but something will work out eventually. Hiding T 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Digimon tagging status

Hi, note that my bot request was approved for the tagging task, and even GrooveDog was chipped in to help, but my bot is not running right now due to an Internet outage I currently have. Once that's back up, I should be able to get the bot to finish the tagging. MuZemike 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

R_to_section template usage

Hello G.A.S, what is your understanding of the proper usage of {{R to section}}? I read it is a being for those redirects that specifically target a section, that is, the template is appropriate if and only if there is a "#" in the redirect target link.

I see that you have added this template to several redirects that do not specifically target a section, such as with Raspberry Heaven, where you tagged it and I subsequently removed the tag (assuming that you must have accidentally tagged the wrong redirect -- an error perhaps made easier using AWB).

I fixed a handful of these before I realized that the tagging was likely intentional, and I wanted to verify my interpretation before continuing. I know that even if the topic of a redirect is only discussed in one section, it is often not appropriate to redirect to the section as section redirects can be disorienting, landing a reader in the middle of a page. Do you understand {{R to section}} as appropriate for redirects whose subject is discussed in only one section but which do not target the section in the redirect link? -- ToET 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While on the topic, I would contrast Raspberry Heaven above (where the subject of the redirect is dealt with only in one section) with Guyver tv which you also tagged {{R to section}}. In this case the redirect seems synonymous with the target article Guyver: The Bioboosted Armor, and the tag doesn't make sense to me under any interpretation of the template. -- ToET 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I do regard {{R to section}} as appropriate for certain redirects where the subject is only discussed in the middle of the page and the redirect has only an vague connection to the main article: in the past, many anime and manga episodes/soundtracks/character articles were redirected to the main article's page, and often (i.e. as with Raspberry Heaven), it would not really make sense to land at the main page—the reader was most likely searching for a song). In the former case, the appropriate section link would be Azumanga_Daioh#Soundtracks. I did not, however add the section link at the time as I was tagging about a thousand articles[6] at the time (mostly with {{CharR to list entry}}) and there was simply no time. These section link should still be added.
This would typically have been used for:
  • Works redirected to an author.
  • Songs etc. redirected to a main article.
  • (To be added)
You got me on Guyver tv, however. I think I added the template as the topic was only discussed in two sections, but on closer inspection this seems to have been in error (The article was incorrectly named Guyver tv).
G.A.Stalk 04:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)OK, let me check. Are you agreeing that, in general, {{R to section}} is only appropriate for redirects that actually target a section (that is, those whose redirect link contains a "#"), but that you may have tagged a bunch of redirects to indicate that they needed to be retargeted to a section?

96.5% of all redirects tagged with {{R to section}} do in fact link to a section, but one editor I have spoken with feels that it is an appropriate tag to indicate that the topic of the redirect is addressed in only one section, even if (for various reasons) it is not desirable to target that section. I don't think his interpretation is supported by the redirect's documentation or usage history, but I wanted to check with someone else (you) who appeared to be using it in that same manner before raising the question elsewhere. -- ToET 07:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but can you give me examples of the latter please? G.A.Stalk 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)This is probably not what you meant, but here are the 13 of these sorts of redirects that you tagged.

I would be happy to take care of these if you don't want to.

Regarding the other interpretation of the template's use, Sloppy FirstsJessica Darling is the example I brought up with TAnthony (who is responsible for 33 of these sorts of tags). While it would be possible to target the "Novels" section, I agree with TAnthony's reasoning for why it's better not to redirect to any section here. (That is a judgment call and I don't feel strongly enough in this case to object to an edit that did target the section.) Another example is Around the World SubmergedEdward L. Beach, Jr.. Where TAnthony and I disagree is that he feels {{R to section}} is still appropriate here without the section redirect. He thinks that there should a template to tag the fact that the redirect is not synonymous with the target article, but instead refers to material discussed within a section, and would be happy to have the template replaced with one more appropriate. I'm still scouting the redirect template landscape to learn what is used. {{R from subtopic}} seems like a possibility. -- ToET 14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added the most appropriate course of section redirect in the lists above. Not sure about the best redirect template for Around the World Submerged. I feel that R to section is not completely appropriate because the information in the article is insufficient (compare content with Meteor StrikeNobuhiro Watsuki#Manga Works). Nor do I feel that {{R with possibilities}} is appropriate (article was nominated for deletion as non-notable). G.A.Stalk 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I had removed the tag from six of your redirects (including Raspberry Heaven that I mentioned above) before I realized that they weren't necessarily placed in error. In the spirit of your suggestions above I have retargetd to section these four:
but with these two the redirect title does not appear in the target aritcle:
-- ToET 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey....why are you suddenly adding these to articles? Last time I heard, there was absolutely no consensus for using this sort of template or method for italicizing article titles, indeed consensus was firmly against it? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a general discussion on this at WT:ANIME#DISPLAYTITLE?. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw the edit on List of Last Exile episodes, and it adding it made sense at the time (also thought the ability to insert Italics in titles was part of the recent software update); I was a bit unaware of the lack of consensus about this...
Lets see where the discussion goes:)
Anyway. I do not quite appreciate your using rollback on me. All you needed to do was ask and I would have done so myself.
G.A.Stalk 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I only used rollback because I was going through the other guy's 100+ and trying to deal with them quickly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Accepted. It would also have helped if the situation was covered here, here or here. A RFC on some template's talk page does not cut it. G.A.Stalk 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the current RfC was mentioned in a signpost, but I agree, it really needs discussion in a wider forum or at least with wider advertisement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Signpost cannot be regarded as a long term solution—it is impractical to search through all of the archives. The relevant manuals of style should have been updated after the RFC, or at the very least, discussion should have started on the relevant Manual of Style's talk page. G.A.Stalk 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, skimming through the discussion that did take place, it doesn't appear that titles of works were specifically discussed. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

BarnSakura for excellent edits

BarnSakura.png The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your continued work in helping bring the Tokyo Mew Mew articles up to featured quality level. I'm happy to note that the final article, List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes, has passed its featured list candidacy! Going for featured topic...the end is in sight :) ---- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you, and glad to hear:) Made any plans for the next project? Digimon perhaps? ~evil grin~ G.A.Stalk 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not that crazy ;-) Hoping to work on Cardcaptor Sakura actually, which had a lot of similar issues, and promised to help out with the Fruits Basket set :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Fruits Basket might actually be a good choice, esp if you have Good article status in mind. FA might be a bit more difficult due to the usual need for a copy-edit, but I believe that Quasirandom is a professional editor, so maybe he would be willing? I am still watching the anime, so I would prefer not helping at this stage (to avoid spoilers). G.A.Stalk 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, and you might want to try pasting this here. ^_^ G.A.Stalk 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, cool! Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, did you see? TMM is now a Featured Topic!! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Congratulations on achieving the big hairy audacious goal! :-D G.A.Stalk 04:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AWB request

Hi G.A.S

I was looking at AWB requests and saw yours. I didn't get any returns from your reference link, so thought I'd check to see if the job has in fact been done, so I can mark it so. Cheers, Heds (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's been done (manually, might I add). I got bored and had nothing better to do, so... =D (boy, I sure don't look like G.A.S, do I? XD ) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Music of Cutie Honey is complete

I made some mistakes but the merge to Music of Cutie Honey is complete. -- allennames 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Adjust redirect page

Hello I am not sure if this is the way I should contact you since I am new but I was wondering if you could edit the redirect page Raptor Jesus to Raptor Jesus(meme) as it now has its own page. Thank you very much

I see that this has been done. However, the recreated page was deleted before under the old name, Raptor Jesus, thus I am renominating it for deletion (instead of deleting the article per WP:G4). G.A.Stalk 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Raptor Jesus

Hi there I was just wondering how this worked, is it a vote or do admins look through the disscustion and make a desion. Also if it is black listed and we find a notable source can we still make it or is it black listed for life ? thank you -- (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, a deletion discussion is not a !vote, requiring the admin to go through the discussion and evaluate whether consensus has been established and/or to weigh opinions based on their reasoning. It is however customary to put your opinion in '''bold'''.
Normally pages are salted to prevent them from being recreated until such time a proper article can be created. When I was researching this earlier today, I came upon the fact that salting is rather inflexible, and that another option is blacklisting (meaning that regular expressions may be used to prevent recreation). This is not permanent as stated in WP:SALT, the decision may be reversed (See also: Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages).
Take for instance Diablo III: The article was first AFD'd during 2006, and then AFD'd again during 2008, and was speedy deleted many times ([7] and [8]). After the second time, the article was also salted to prevent recreation. When the game was announced, this restricion was lifted and the article was created.
Hope that helps.
G.A.Stalk 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes from Dragon Ball chapters

With the transclusion of the chapters list, now the notes from List of Dragon Ball chapters (series) and List of Dragon Ball Z chapters are in List of Dragon Ball manga volumes although the main list does not show the chapters. Is there a way to move the notes to avoid showing it there? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply enclose what you don't want to be transcluded in <noinclude> and </noinclude>. Goodraise 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Heh, I can't count the number of times I've been logging in and accidentally started typing "Dingo". XD ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that happens when one's doing 20 things all at once:-) G.A.Stalk 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Same as prefixing your posts with a space? =D ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope. That is called GPRS and a 2" screen. G.A.Stalk 20:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, I see. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Thanks :) Anything important happen with WP:ANIME that I should know about before jumping back in? — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will have to think about it, it has been quite a while. G.A.Stalk 06:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Five Years!

Wow, thanks[9]. I hadn't even noticed I'd hit the five year mark. How the years fly...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Could you look at List_of_Case_Closed_characters. I assessed it as C-Class and since then Dragonzero has made some changes to the article. He's requested a reassessment but I think it still needs work to get to B-Class. Anyway, a fresh set of eyes would be a big help. I don't want to dismiss the request out of hand. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I will start now. G.A.Stalk 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know your opinion about some of the recommendations before I post them to WP:ASSESS (to make sure we give the same message):
  • Character names should not be bold (esp here) It is distracting (see 1, 2, 3, 4). You would be surprised how the look & feel of the article improves if all instances of ''' is removed.
  • There are too many minor characters, and most of them may not have enough content to justify a separate section. If they need to be listed, convert come of them (i.e. Junior Detective League, Tokyo Metropolitan Police, FBI, CIA) to bullet lists and add more information about the group itself (example: List_of_Bobobo-bo_Bo-bobo_characters#Battleship_Five_Quartet). I would also recommend adding the more "regular" characters to a "supporting characters" section instead of "other".
  • Reception is still very short (see 1, 2, 3).
  • Not sure whether "merchandise" section is needed. Expand, remove or move to reception with and add sales information?
G.A.Stalk 14:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with those recommendations. Somehow I'd missed the bolded names, but it does make it hard to read. I had commented about too many minor characters as well, but nothing was really done. It seems like it's still trying to be a comprehensive list of all/most the characters in the series rather than a summary. How do you feel about the way the other characters section is organized? It is really ok to be organized by group? It bothers me because it's an in-universe organization, but it also masks the fact that each heading has like 4-10 trivial characters under it. Gah... character lists are hard work. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The "by group" organisation is not unique to this article: For example the Naruto character list, lists many characters by team. But in my opinion your never put the most content/characters/anything under "other" (Protagonists = 3, Antagonists = 9, Other characters (L2 heading) = 4 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 20 (Other, L3 heading) = 36 = almost 2/3 of characters are listed under "other"; suggestion 2 should address this -->
Recommended layout:
  • Protagonists = 3
  • Antagonists = 1 (Black organisation, bullets for characters) + Other regulars (if any?)
  • Supporting "characters" = 4 (FBI, CIA, JDL, TMP, with bullets under each) + Other regulars)
  • Other (everyone else—maybe even in a bullet list as it seems that there is very little content for most of them).
G.A.Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In some lists like List of Sgt. Frog characters I've collapsed groups or organizations (with individual listings of characters in that group) into a single paragraph that summarizes the group and its members. I don't know if that would hold up as the quality is improved, but it seems like it would be better to have a couple sentences mentioning 4-5 minor characters rather than individual listings that don't contribute to the general summary of the work. I try to keep in mind that Dragonzero is in the same situation as almost everyone who works on character lists; the list is already there and the editor is just trying to bring up the quality. I think he might be reluctant to remove characters that are important to the plot, but not necessarily important to understanding the work as a whole. Anyway, I think we're on the same page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
(Not sure about the example) That might also work. I do not require that the characters be deleted (yet); some reorganisation would do the trick for now (although they would probably be removed after a peer review). G.A.Stalk 10:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the example. I think I was thinking about List_of_GetBackers_characters, which now that I look at it it has a lot of the same problems. But in the gangs in groups section I had started to meld a whole slew of minor characters into one chunk of readable prose. It's not ideal, but it would be a step in the right direction. At least I think that was the point I was trying to make. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem - we are on the same page. Would you like to reply at WP:ANIME/ASSESS or should I? G.A.Stalk 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. You are welcome anytime -- I may not be editing actively nowdays, but check my watchlist/messages regularly, and am happy to help anytime. G.A.Stalk 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam

So, would the article be B-class if it had an image? We are sort of working on that, but 3 characters in one image might be tricky. Also someone was concerned about the copyright if we merged them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have actually listed the article at WP:ANIME/ASSESS for a second opinion shortly after completing the checklist -- It would be best to see what happens there first. In my opinion, the article is close to B-class and an image (even if it is just one of them--do they look more or less alike?) will surely help:-). regards, G.A.Stalk 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I personally don't think that it is ready for B-class. The whole video game section has no references. I could throw some in there just referencing the games themselves, but I have been busy with other articles like Charizard. But after an image, and those references, and maybe some other tweaks are done, it might even be ready for GA. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hence my saying that it is very close to B-class—and I believe you are correct by saying that some other tweaks might get the article to GA-class as well. It is usually fine if you reference video game appearances to the game itself. G.A.Stalk 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and I think it still needs a bit of work to get B-Class. The obvious problem is that there's no illustrations, I don't think you can get dinged on copyright for using an image for illustration. I'm almost positive that no free substitute exists. I also noticed the referencing issue, so that could be tightened up too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle Angel Alita article merges

Thanks for your work in doing the merges. Although I created many of the articles, I support the move to merge the standalone character articles because it's true, they aren't up to Wikipedia standards and are more appropriate to Wikia, where there is also an existing Battle Angel wiki ( While still a fan of the series, I personally have lost interest in further maintenance work on the articles at this time as I have other concerns on my plate. I also found it somewhat difficult to be self-sustaining in this because the number of registered users who are interested in the series is very, very small; I can think of one other person who has done some work and haven't seen them at all active recently. --BrokenSphereMsg me 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate the message^_^. (I originally started the merges in an effort to start clearing the backlog, but also because it is somewhat easier to work on less active articles). I would also appreciate if you can check the completed merges (1 and 2) to see whether I missed something important, and if so, please let me know? Can you also let me know which characters you considered "minor" (i.e. may be omitted from the list)? Regards, G.A.Stalk 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I merged several characters into the sections for characters who they more closely related to, with the names in bold. Not sure if this is how it "should" be done, but it helps them stand out for now. Some more merging can likely be done after articles like Zapan and Hunter-warrior are merged in. Looking at, many descriptions can be cut down further as well eventually. --BrokenSphereMsg me 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help^_^. G.A.Stalk 17:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you're looking to merge the Last Order characters into the original manga list and am curious as to how this would improve both lists. Also, has this sort of thing been done before? I'm sure it has, I just don't know where. Thanks! BrokenSphereMsg me 17:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi BrokenSphere.
Usually anime and manga series have only a single character list which includes sequels, prequels, etc. This helps reduce redundancy as characters' various roles are described in a single place, as opposed to being described in multiple places. To some degree, this has already been done in the Battle Angel character list (i.e. the description covers Last Order as well), although not fully so. For some examples, I can mention List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (FL), List of Naruto characters (FL). Although I do not think either of these lists were the result of combining two lists, though: The former list was the result of the merger of individual articles and minor characters were removed before the list was nominated as a FL candidate, but I am not sure about the latter.
[Of course, having a single article counts for the main articles as well, see for instance Fullmetal Alchemist and Tokyo Mew Mew (FA), although I am not planning to work on the main articles yet]
G.A.Stalk 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool, sounds good. BrokenSphereMsg me 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Grendizer characters

Hi, First of all thanks for notifying me, I'm still new to wikipedia and Don't fully understand the copyright issues as of now, Would that be the pictures? If so, what else, If it is 'excessive'? I'd like to ammend this as soon as possible but I would also like an idea of what I'm fixing. Necrojesta (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Welcome! Please let me know if I can help in any way. Usually the amount of Fair Use images should be limited to as few as possible: within WP:ANIME, lists would usually have one group image of the characters, and not individual images. See for instance: List of One Piece characters, etc. Long lists, however, may warrant more images, for instance: List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, List of Naruto characters. G.A.Stalk 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I immediately see what you mean, this article may have to go without, It doesn't seem to be a well known series, So it might be hard to find an image, And I'm not considering watching the series since 70s mecha anime doesn't interest me :). Thanks for being so helpful and also, your name spells out stalk. ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrojesta (talkcontribs) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)