Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I prefer to comments made here on this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, flame baiting, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, this is your first one. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you added an {{underconstruction}} tag to the aforementioned article. I was just about to take a stab at it due to the current discussion at WT:ANIME, but didn't want to conflict with whatever you're planning, so cementing out the details here seems good. I think separating by seasons (List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 1), List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 2), and List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 3)) is best, similar to the structure at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. My big issue is that the English version's episode listing is completely different, so I'm even wondering whether a separate List of Cardcaptors episodes is preferable. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, feel free to go for it, since I haven't started yet and you do such awesome lists :) You're probably right on the idea of doing three season lists rather than trying to put all 70 episodes on a single page. The extra fun is that there are two English releases. I think the seasons in these lists should just deal with the Japanese and the uncut English releases, which were not aired on TV just released to DVD. The Cardcaptors version had an episode list in its main article, but it was all wrong so I removed it (it was the CCS list, not the Cardcaptors one), so might be good to do a list for it as well. They changed so much and merged/hacked the originals, it would be easier to have the list separate than to try to make notes in the regular list to tie the episodes together.

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it should be AfDed. The term has no notability and the article is original research in the form of a personal research essay. As Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service, and the only one using this term is him, it is not something that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Collectonian. I have changed several sections and reorganised some sections in Enchanted (film). Do you think it needs further restructuring? Individual sections may still need improving but I think the general structure of the article follows the MoS now. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its looking great. I've removed the tag. About the only thing I might suggest is maybe moving the official references up either above merchandise or under the production section. Great work on the article as a whole. I've also reassessed it to a B. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks, Ladida (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why you changed the names to fit the novel rather than the Anime. I was under the impression that this article wa created using references from the Anime more than the other two versions. It really doesn't matter either way, and I believe that it was unecessary to bother. I would stick with the Anime because it is probably better known than the other two versions, but either versions work.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia guidelines and the anime/manga MOS, articles about series with multiple versions focus on the first version, with the rest mentioned as adaptations/retellings, as appropriate, not the most popular one. As the Trinity Blood novels came first, and are the source for both the manga and the anime series, the novels are what the main article and character list must use as their primary source. The episode list, of course, will still use the anime as its source because that is the specific version it is about.  :) Collectonian (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever works I guess, but the spellings in the novels are translations, so there is no absolute certainty about the validity of the spellings in a different language. I suppose we should avoid overcomplicating the situation and just assume that it is correct, and leave it at that unless some reliable source say otherwise, but for the time being it doesn't really matter. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True on the translations, but in general we use the official English translation unless there are reliable sources that show that the translation is incorrect. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops -- I see we're stomping on each other. I'll get out of the way. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no worries. I just couldn't take looking at the layout anymore. I'm done for now. Need to go eat. I've tagged it as underconstruction, so if you want to work on it some more, just change it to inuse then change back when done. *grin* I left a note on the talk page detailing the work I saw as needing done, if it helps. Collectonian (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a bad idea at all! It would certainly be appropriate—since Wookiepedia's page on Leia already has that title as a section—and would give the article a relieving boost. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. John254 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]