Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 10 March 2010

User:Collectonian/talkheader

Source requests

Just wondering if you might have any (probably printed) sources for Excel Saga and Slayers.

For Excel Saga I'm especially looking for the date of the serialised debut. While Viz and Jason Thompson both claim it's 1997, I'm inclined to believe the unreliable sources that it's actually April 96. Naturally for the moment I've gone with Viz, but as the first published volume came out in the first half of 1997 and it's a monthly series, it's clearly wrong. However naturally any reception or media info would be quite useful to.

For Slayers it's a combination of media release information for the novels and manga, as well as reception information. I have an Animerica with character profiles and a general discussion of the series/ovas, but there should be a lot of Central Park Media ads and announcements to source release dates and such from. For reception, I'm looking for a more objective look at the series to counter Chris Beveridge's ridiculous assassination of the series to allow the construction of a balanced and neutral section.

Neither are especially important to do right now, but there is easily enough sources out there to get Slayers to a respectable condition with time. Actually while I'm here, could you do a reassessment of Excel Saga please? The assessment page isn't getting a lot of action these days, and the talk page says the only failure of the previous version was sourcing, which is now addressed. Thanks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both are in the anime and manga encycs, and I think I remember having some Animerica issues covering Slayers. Let me check my logs on that :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looked through both of those. The animerica I have with a feature is one of the issues i've listed on the magazine page. I'm wondering if any of your issues have release dates for the manga series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it started publishing in Young King Ours in September 1996, with the first volume released in April 1997. I suppose you could ask Carl Horn on excelsagaforum.com. He's on there from time to time. Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While Carl Horn is clearly a reliable source, his postings on a forum are not. I'm aware it's the most likely correct date but it needs a printed or online source posted at a location that will pass as a reliable source. A forum reply won't cut it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if you dislike WP:SPS to the extent that you refuse to use the 'blogs, forums etc' it covers, why not just email Horn? I ask him stuff all the time, and he's always been remarkably responsive & helpful. Academics cite 'personal communication' without qualm, and if it's good enough for them (and our copyright clearances and all the other OTRS functions...), I think it's good enough for us. --Gwern (contribs) 13:34 28 January 2010 (GMT)

If you are going to try and make a point, don't get your facts wrong. I use SPS all the time, I just use reliable ones not random fanblogs.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because an email is an even less reliable source than a forum posting. Far better to find an actual reliable source instead, unless you're suggesting to email him to get pointed to such sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An email is a perfectly reliable source. We accept emails for copyright licensing, we accept emails for complaints leading to things like OFFICE actions, we accept emails for confirming an editor is actually a notable - we accept emails for all the dangerous important stuff (which Excel Saga dates certainly aren't) that go through OTRS, academia uses emails & mail for anything & everything, and a fortiori we certainly will accept email for sourcing small details.

And yes, you could just ask whether he knows of any relevant sources or where to find one. Lord knows I've done that myself enough times. --Gwern (contribs) 14:35 28 January 2010 (GMT)

An email is not a reliable source for wikipedia, now matter how you try to reason it (it's come up before). Lets just leave it at that, I'm not getting into an argument with you about what a reliable source is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean for this to start an argument. I just thought you could ask him which volume of Young King Ours it started it. Then you could track it down a copy and source the magazine itself. Grapeofdeath (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unarchiving so as to not forget again :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:42, 2 January 2030 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe this...

I thought for sure this idiot would have gotten the message by now. He's blocked. Again. Thanks for letting me know and I am SO glad you caught me. I was just signing off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob. The first one he hit, I didn't notice at first (too tired lately), but spotted him after hit two. Blech. Guessing someone went through and lifted all the protections, or did he just manage to find enough unprotected to get by? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles he's been hitting are (or at least were) permanently semi-protected. Problem with that is, once an account has a few edits under its belt, the system allows that account to edit even the semi-protected content. The only way to completely keep him away if he manages to log on again is to put full protection on all his pets, meaning only admins can edit them. I tell you, I am absolutely stymied. I've never seen anything like this kid. He is unquestionably autistic with a real sadistic streak. No reasonable person would keep on doing this garbage for as long as he has. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They really need to fix the auto confirmed system so things like his constant editing of the sandbox wouldn't have removed the flag, and changing a template. Blech. And agreed...its rather pathetic, on the whole, that this is the best thing he can find to do with his time. You'd think he could at least amuse himself with a Nintedo Wii or something, since his "dad can buy Misplaced Pages!" :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Hey, I tried. Since he loves Disney-related ephemera so much, I'd offered to work with him since my wife and I have top-of-the-line annual passports to Disneyland/Disney's California Adventure. A good friend of mine, Kal David, actually did an Audio-Animatronic voice at Disney World and I used to know Lord Tim Hudson, who did the voice of the Ringo Starr-haired vulture in the original Jungle Book movie. I figured that gave me some reasonably good Disney creds.  :) He instead saw fit to start in with a litany of online insults after he'd agreed to being mentored. I just cannot figure what goes on inside this squirrel's skull. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Me either, and trust me, you aren't the only one who tried. I won't even edit most of the Disney film articles now purely because he usually begs me to when he's blocked. Only ones I've dealt with at all are ones directly related to the novel articles I've been working on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame you. He really made me reevaluate my own time spent here. I actually have a life - as do you - and neither of us want to waste time cleaning up after an unsupervised, foolish little brat. Gotta run, but I did block that range. That makes five. Sheesh... PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good evening. Think I'll grab some dinner myself while I continue waiting the fate of my current FAC. :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Animanga character infobox field review

Hey I had just noticed you had chosen to select remove in every category with your concern being too in universe, do you think if more out of universe information was put into the article and not the infobox then they would blend more together? If not too much out of universe info can be found on a character it can be a problem right there anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a character has the real-world notability to support having an article, the article should be primarily real-world info, and the entire article written from an out-of-universe perspective. The infobox should also primarily highlight its real-world aspects, rather than being so heavily focused on minute details that are not even appropriate for more than a one-sentence note in the plot summary sections of such articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about mixing them up in the infobox then too? I understand your point, alot of the details of a character can be easily covered in the plot, I suppose it has come down to the infobox being a lead to the plot as the lead is to the article. Currently the ones I see not making the cut are: Date of birth, Date of death, Title, Occupation, Class, and Last appearance. Those are 6 slots, would things like: Voiced by: and Created by: be any better? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about channels that do not exist that yet?

Should channels that do not exist that yet have pages on Misplaced Pages? I am asking because The Anime Channel has only been approve for a license but does not been announce for broadcast yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.15.16 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they should not as they do not exist, and are unnotable per WP:N and per WP:CRYSTAL there is no guarantee it will. I've sent it up for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)