Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:14, 28 December 2008

User:Collectonian/talkheader

Happy Holidays!

ムーカオズルール 08:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

NP! ムーカオズルール 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We were having a discussion about how big our manga collections are. I subscribe to every existing Jump magazine and have easily over 1,000 manga volumes total, floor to ceiling. How big is yours Collectonian? – J U M P G U R U 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not nearly that size at all. According to my online catalog, I have 432 volumes of manga (actually 436 because the CCS collections have 3 vols each), 102 volumes of yaoi/shonen-ai manga, and 17 light novels. And I have every issue of Shojo Beat since it started publication. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whazza huh? I thought you didn't like yaoi? S:-| – J U M P G U R U 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? No, love yaoi and shonen-ai. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

PHAIL D: I like tripped on snow and ice and hurt my knee when I was walking back to my house from my friends... ムーカオズルール 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

*ouch* hope you're okay! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine. XD but I was just lying there on the sidewalk when I fell. I think people thought I was weird D: ムーカオズルール 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

XD what's "readded"? You used it in one of your edit summaries ムーカオズルール 05:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Readded = added again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

OH. Re-added... ムーカオズルール 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much for yaoi when the series focuses on it (I found it absolutely painful watching Descendants of Darkness), but I'm fine with random yaoiness like in Ouran High School Host Club. I guess I'm just weird... XD —Dinoguy1000 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what did you all get for Christmas? I got socks - lots and lots (random Dr. Seuss moment), new pajamas (really comfy ones! ^_^ ), and a bargain-bin PC game. —Dinoguy1000 18:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the All Colour But the Black: The Art of Bleach, some Final Fantasy video games, a Japanese Couch DS game (even thouh I already know Japanese : P, guess it's just good to practice), Bleach Uncut DVD, and Buso Renkin Uncut. I went to my mom's house and we did white elephant gifts becuase we can't afford better in the economy. It was fun though, got a Blockbuster giftcard. – J U M P G U R U 19:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters

I agree in principle that this article is generally overbloated with detail, but I'm a bit puzzled by your note wrt the Kou/Hong name change that the respective Japanese and American official sites for the anime don't constitute "good cites for this claim"; on the NHK character page, each individual profile lists the name pronunciations in kana-- in this case, "Kou"-- and Funimation clearly lists its own name versions for the American release. Moreover, in the Funimation version, one can clearly *hear* the name spoken as "Kou" in the original Japanese dialogue while the English subtitles write the name as "Hong"; imho this discrepancy really does need to be addressed up front. (As a related note, even the main Saiunkoku article contains self-conflicting usage of both the "Hong" and "Kou" names for members of this clan.)

I did look for a more primary Japanese source about the original light novels rather than just the anime, but couldn't find one; what would you consider to be an adequate authority for this issue? Wombat1138 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You basically cited the names themselves, not the why. The kanji/English versions don't really need citations as they are from the primary sources. The reason WHY it was changed is what needs a citation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fished around a bit and found a direct statement from a Geneon representative: http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showpost.php?p=1098712&postcount=15 ...? Since the "Kou" conflict is based on homonyms, it seems as if it would be helpful to actually list the two kanji in question; the other families' kanji would be nice for parity, though not strictly relevant-- and surely the change itself should still be documented regardless of motive? Wombat1138 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The change is documented, in a footnote (and should be a sourced part of the main article). I don't know that the old AoD post can be considered a reliable source (haven't really tried using one that I can think of in a peer review). The kanji is noted in the actual character names, which is all that is necessary for that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The name change was originally made by Geneon, although the R1 DVDs are now being distributed by Funimation. Wombat1138 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this, but the episodes themselves are still the primary source for the names themselves :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps the wording can be shifted from "Funimation changed the name" to something more like "In the Funimation R1 DVDs, the name has been changed to"? Not really a huge deal, but otoh "the Chinese reading of the kanji" really needs to be clarified between the Chinese-based on'yomi readings used in the Japanese language (esp. in reference to the term "kanji") vs. the reading used in Mandarin Chinese, in which characters are called "hanzi". In the most literal sense, "the Chinese reading of the kanji" *is* Kō. Wombat1138 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how is that? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

^_^; "Kō" is the Chinese-based on'yomi reading in Japanese (which is also used for all of the other names in the series); "Hong" is the pronunciation of the same character in Mandarin Chinese. Wombat1138 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Woops...I haven't had enough sleep of late :P How's that? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good-- I reworded the note a bit and also noticed a few more Ko -> Hong overcorrections from past versions. There are a lot of minor grammar slips all over the article, but evidently I couldn't just fix those earlier without trying to compress/paraphrase the rest of the text out of template :b Wombat1138 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, and yes, it does need a lot of rewriting. It is written too much in-universe, without enough sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

...so I still can't quite figure out what the major off-template issues were; could you point them out so I can keep them in mind if I try again? The only thing that comes to mind is romanization issues, but I definitely attempted to keep those in long-vowel macron format. Wombat1138 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-template issues? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic consistency, then? Or whatever it was that prompted the reversion of my entire edit from 02:38, 23 December 2008 and the note on my Talk page; internal Misplaced Pages format/style/etc. conventions/jargon still tend to mystify me :b Wombat1138 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Parentheticals like that should not be used in the headers (nor is it particularly relevant data). You also began reorganizing the list without explanation nor prior discussion to reach a consensus on why its needed and what the best organization method would be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Should I leave relevant notes on the talk page, or is there a separate area to initiate general discussions beforehand? With the color parentheticals, my main thought was to clarify the difference between the pre-Geneon name homonyms for the Red/Yellow clans, for which the other clan color IDs would provide parity. The Hong subdivisions were meant to create a clear division between Shoka's personal household and the rest of the clan-- as currently written in Shurei's section, frex, there's way too much ambiguity in "Despite the high social status of her family, Shurei grew up in relatively impoverished circumstances. Her father's job brought little income, and much of the wealth of their family home was given to the needy during the devastating fight for the imperial succession eight years ago": the first mention of her family refers to the Hong clan in general, from which her theoretical social rank is still derived; but "her family home" refers only to Shoka's household, rather than the main estates of the Hong clan or the general welfare of all clan members. Since the impoverished status of Shoka's branch of the Hongs is due to his personal position within the clan, and because he's the head of his household, he gets to head that subsection, which contains Shurei and Seiran as his theoretical dependents who owe him their direct loyalty etc. Does that sort of thing make sense? Wombat1138 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should start a discussion on the talk page about why you feel the list needs reorganizing and what your proposed new organizational method is. The color parentheticals are not needed in the headers, since the pre-Geneon names aren't even mentioned until the prose. The color variations also seem fairly irrelevant, as the colors themselves are not critical to the series. The list is already organized from an inappropriate in-universe perspective, going against WP:WAF and the general anime project guidelines. Adding additional in-universe divisions seems to be taking a step backwards instead of forward. Ideally, the list should be sorted by protagonists, antagonists, supporting characters, and minor characters, with subdivisions only as necessary. See List of Naruto characters for a good overall model in terms of formatting, writing style, referencing, etc. Unfortunately, any rewrites to the prose were lost in the changes as well because they could not be separate from the rest. If you want to do some rewriting to the prose to fix the ambiguity, without the reorganization, by all means please feel free to do so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

SMK Semera

This is a really bad article. Do you think it should be nominated for deletion or rewritten? ムーカオズルール 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

CSDed for unnotable organization. If that fails, it should be AfDed as an unnotable school. Not seeing anything notable about it at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

School Records

1. In 2007, a student, Ismim Putera bin Mohd. Nawawi scored 9A's in PMR exam, which is the first record in Samarahan district.
2. SMK Semera Drama Club is the second runner-up in Samarahan Drama Competition held on April 2007.

Unnotable? Also, why did you deleted my message? These are getting so "splunking"... --Mark Chung (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't notability what-so-ever for the school, and none of it is sourced. Go read WP:N. None of the sources you added are reliable ones, FYI, nor do they source anything. And I deleted your message because you posted it already on the article talk page. No need for it here as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle/Sesshomaru?

Is your Twinkle working fine? I tried using it to revert the vandalism on Sesshomaru's page, but it said "Reverting page: couldn't grab element "editform", aborting, this could indicate failed response from the server". ムーカオズルール 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mine is working fine. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I must have messed it up installing it or something. Could you check my monobook.js page? ムーカオズルール 23:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks correct. You're using Firefox, right? Did you try refreshing your cache by holding down Shift while clicking refresh? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've done that already. It might have been a problem on the server... ムーカオズルール 04:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a temp hiccup somewhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

XD Funny you should bring up hiccups. My cousin was singing karaoke here and he had REALLY bad hiccups and it was funny... ムーカオズルール 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry for being harsh... I don't know a better way to express myself. Anyway, what I wrote (to be accurate, type) on that page is what I'm thinking of. Those articles (that I listed) aren't better than SMK Semera, are they?

Also, please kindly refrain from giving me templated messages - I hate them and I like "real" ones - They feel better to me... Thanks.--Mark Chung (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I don't care if you hate them. You don't want to get warnings, don't do things to earn them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

re: 125.161.58.37

I've created a report on WP:AN/I about this user, as he is that Anime/MGM vandal I've warned about on WP:ANIME. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Anime/MGM vandal back yet again. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 07:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to know...hopefully they can do some kind of range blocks or something. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

What's going on? I had a cup of tea (coffee actually) with my friends, and I saw a message after I came back. I saw nothing so I checked the page's history and found 2 vandals - 1 IP and 1 called VicoMaster. As I am about to warn Vicomaster, I saw he had been blocked thus I checked the user's contribs. and I saw VicoMaster vandalised Moo's, JJL's and your talk page together with mine. The IP vandal however only vandalsed our talkpage. Well, thanks for reverting the evil edit. Do you want a barnstar?--Mark Chung (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I've put in an IP check since it seems like its the same person being silly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably is the same person. What'd you get for Christmas, Collectonian? ムーカオズルール 19:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon(anime)

I'm not really sure what to do here. This looks like an inappropriate split out from Blue Dragon, but I'm not familiar with the series, and this type of cleanup isn't my forte anyways. Would you care to have a look? —Dinoguy1000 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a very bad split done by a new editor who didn't bother to discuss it or anything. I've redirected it back to the original article. Indeed...I could have sworn that was discussed and rejected recently. He also inappropriately split out Shu (Blue Dragon) which I have redirected back to the character list.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

SMK Semera curriculum

It's not irrelevant! Refer to SMK Aminuddin Baki, Johor Bahru. It has the information as well. Therefore, it's appropriate. Thanks. Mark Chung (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, pointing to another low class bad article is not a sign that it is appropriate. Bad articles are all over the place. The curriculum of a high school is completely irrelevant to its article. It should be removed from that other article and any more of those SMK things as well. This is NOT a directory nor a school guide. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for the appropriate format and content of a school article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, do they need cleanup? You can find a lot more examples within my comment, in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SMK Semera. As for Vicomaster, do you think we should list him as suspected sockpuppets? Mark Chung (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that relevant to WP:LIST more? ムーカオズルール 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I meant list of indiscriminate information... Or some other guideline D: ムーカオズルール 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a list, it's a...... list. I mean that is not a normal/formal list as it should be, it's just a few example from me. Furthermore, it's doesn't have a name like "List of XXX". The real list is List of schools in Sarawak, Malaysia. Mark Chung (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

XD I know. I got the link wrong. I was thinking of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ムーカオズルール 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait Just kidding... Collectonian? There's some guideline to having lists of information... ムーカオズルール 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Visit User_talk:Mark Chung#SMK Semera. User:Carlossuarez46 mentioned that I should add the curriculum! Visit Talk:SMK Semera as well. User:Harryzilber asked me to add these information as well. Should you just delete that? Think...--Mark Chung (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See articles about US high schools and middle schools. They don't include curriculum. ムーカオズルール 03:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It goes against WP:TRIVIA and other relevant guidelines. Also, Carlossuarez46 does NOT say you should add the curriculum at all, he said the article should note what grade levels it teaches (i.e. high school, middle school, grades 6-9, etc.) Harryzilber is a newbie editor with no experience in Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies. Just because someone asks if something should be included does not mean it should. We do not edit articles at the whims of passersby, but based on consensus based guidelines and policies. As already noted, see the guidelines for editing school articles to see what is and is not appropriate content, as well are reviewing general Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, like WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you kidding me? Let's refer to the best school article - Stuyvesant High School, the only article with both FA rating and top-importance scale. It has everything - academics, enrollment, school facilities, extracurricular activities, and even Mnemonics, the public artwork! Almost everything - why shouldn't we? Yet, HIGH SCHOOL! - Mark Chung (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in that article at all remotely resembling anything you put in the SMK Semera article, and there is certainly no useless list of "curriculum" nor "principals." It is a well sourced, well crafted encyclopedic piece covering the school's history, academic, facilities, student body, etc. Not a page of useless trivia lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Read this -

"Stuyvesant students undertake a college preparatory curriculum that includes four years of English, history, and laboratory-based sciences (biology, chemistry and physics are required), three years of mathematics (most students opt for four) and three years of a single foreign language, a semester each of introductory art, music, health, technical drawing and computer science, and two lab-based technology courses. Several exemptions from technology education exist for seniors."

As I can see, there are a few words that appear. That includes English, history, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, art, music, health, technical drawing, computer science and technology education. They are all subjects! Only in details. But, I agree about the principal part. Maybe I just shouldn't add it. You can remove it if you want.--Mark Chung (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that it is a well sourced (and, again, well-written) prose summary, not a listing of all possible courses/curriculum without any context. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... seems that you're right. Maybe we can add a trivia/notes/facts/miscellaneous section in it. I'll add some information in that section then. We can then integrate the trivia details into the article once the details are sufficient, thus expanding it. Don't worry about WP:TRIVIA, I've looked through it and it mentioned:

Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list.

and

Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate.

OK?--Mark Chung (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT! That is a complete violation of WP:TRIVIA, and a school article certainly does NOT need any sort of trivia section. It will be removed very quickly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

O...K...What should we do then?--Mark Chung (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If notability of the school can be established, the article stays. If not, its deleted and nothing is to be done. If it stays, then follow the guideline I've already linked you to and create a REAL and proper article for the school if you are serious about working on its article. Use prose, not a bunch of lists copied from its blog and student materials, use proper referneces not a fake list thrown at the bottom, and add real content to it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll rewrite it. Can you give me 2 articles about a school (from Malaysia preferably, because things would be similar) to be an example for me to improve SMK Semera? Also, how can can the notability of the school be established? I'm willing to do anything to keep SMK Semera from being deleted. (On second thought, I'm willing to do anything I'm willing to do ALMOST anything)--Mark Chung (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You've already found a great article to use as an example, an FA level school article, and the school article MoS which is what FA articles will be judged against. Its being in Malaysia isn't very relevant to what the overall structure and content. Notability should be established by showing that it has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources (i.e. not the school newspapers and blog), as per WP:N and WP:ORG. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's MoS? Also please refer to SMK_Kuching_High#Principals. What do you think? --Mark Chung (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

MoS = Manual of Style - a guideline providing the "ideal" content and organization for articles. And I've cleaned out the cruft/inappropriate stuff from that one as well. Most of those SMK articles quite frankly suck. They are not valid examples that should be looked to at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that a lot of those schools could be merged into a greater list of SMK schools. Now they seem to be stubs... ムーカオズルール 23:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are stubs... but do you think we can merge them? They are different schools. Can you merge apple and switch together? Of course not!--Mark Chung (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes

As one of your edits to this article on 11 September you removed two columns from the episode tables entitled Card Revealed and Card Used, which I personally found particularly valuable in keeping my place as I slowly work my way through this anime series. Any particular reason for the removal? That information has been with the article nearly since its initial creation and I would argue that it is more concise and valuable than the incomplete set of episode summaries that remain. --75.162.59.89 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. We do not include that sort of trivial, in-universe stuff within the main table columns. If you want a page that has such content in that format, you'll need to look at fansites. This is an encyclopedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and try to avoid judgmental tone. I post the above inquiry because Cardcaptor Sakura is a 35-hour continuous narrative work of fiction and as a casual viewer trying to work my way through it, I found the deleted information genuinely useful as a method of "keeping my place" in the narrative, much more so than if I had to judge from episode titles alone. I can only assume others have seen value it that information as well due to its being retained in the article for more than two and a half years. If the article group had a complete set of episode summaries, the deleted information would be redundant or could be moved, but in accordance with the spirit of WP:IAR I believe the article is done a disservice by simply deleting the card-per-episode information.--75.162.59.89 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above, WP:HTRIVIA defines 'trivia' as "information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to". I think we can agree that is not the case here given that the Clow Cards have their own article, including the episode-specific links information I'm looking for in many cases, but organized more topically as opposed to functionally. Again, if we had a complete set of episode summaries to work with here - and believe me, I'd write them if I could - there would be no need for the formatting that existed previously, but working with what we have available I think it's better to have it than not. Do you still disagree? --75.162.59.89 (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing judgmental in my tone at all, nor did I assume bad faith. You asked a question, I answered it presuming you were unaware of the facts. The fields will not be restored to the article, period. Again, we do not include that sort of trivial, in-universe information like that (and yes, it is trivial and fan trivia), and those fields were removed per consensus. The existance of the Clow Card article is is irrelevant, as are the lists unfortunate lack of decent summaries. The series' articles are still mid-clean up/overhaul, as such, yes, they have issues, but putting back old issues to service fans is not the way to continue the good works being done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by several sections currently active on this talk page, it seems to me when it comes to "serious fanboys", you consistently assume bad faith. Be that as it may, on what basis are you defining trivia here? Fan trivia is not a term that exists in the MoS as far as I can find. I have already pointed to WP:HTRIVIA's definition and I will further point to its primary example of triviality: If Kenny being killed by Mir is important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), then analogously the captured Clow Card is important to the List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes. --75.162.59.89 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So you assume bad faith about me because of other conversations which you are ignorant about the full context of? Interesting. That is neither a policy, nor a guideline. See WP:TRIVIA for the real one. The captured Clow Card is only important within the summary, not the table structure. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you had stated this initially @ 05:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC) instead of preaching about things that don't belong on Misplaced Pages I would have had no argument. Looking into the matter further can you please clarify why you deleted similar information from List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season 1), (season 2), and (season 3) without attempting some form of rewrite? I understand the importance of internal consistency, but I believe strongly that these articles are done a grave disservice by deleting all that information, hence my previous invocation of WP:IAR. --75.162.59.89 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't notice at first that you were sticking an H in front of that. The deletions were done appropriately as part of the list clean up and reformatting. I have not had time to rewatch the series (which, as I'm sure you know, is a lengthy one), to do completely episode rewrites. That isn't a good reason to leave the lists in a bad format, however, and this was discussed when it was done and all agreed it should be removed. The content has been removed for months now, and you are the first to voice any complaint at all, supporting the overall view that it really isn't necessary as a whole.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

advice on requiring sources, please

Over at the page entitled "Disney-Pixar Cars Die-Cast Line" (which is a list of cars released in that merchandise line), I noticed that there was a large section entitled "rumored and unannounced future releases". As rumors are generally not allowed in WP, especially those that are unsourced as these were, I removed it. It was reverted, and I removed it again (posting on the talk page that there needs to be valid non-blog sources associated with the material). It was restored yet again, albeit as a comment block. The editors who have maintained it seem to be a passionate bunch over the details of their topic, so I didn't want to get into a revert war; thought I'd ask for your thoughts before continuing down that path. SpikeJones (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That section doesn't belong there...but that article has serious issues beyond that. The format is all screwed up with the headers, its unreferenced, and the ELs all violate WP:EL. Its basically a fanpage and I really don't think that is a notable topic at all. It should be AfDed all together. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't know if I would be able to argue AfD against the fanboys successfully. If you really think its worthwhile, I'll give it a shot and we'll see what happens. SpikeJones (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

update - added cleanup templates. seemed like the fair thing to start with before beginning AfD process. Thanks for the advice. SpikeJones (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they stripped those off real quick. Seems like the page is under the control of a handful of serious fanboys who are displaying a lot of ownership issues. RaptorWiki is an SPA. I don't think you'd have to worry a lot about them, since its doubtful they can actually argue keep in a deletion debate from a valid perspective. For now, I've readded the tags along with a notability tag and will keep it in my watchlist to help rein them in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's an SPA? If you look, I have asked others how to cite toy listings. It's not information from an article or a quote, so how should that be done? SpikeJones was removing content with no respect for the editors' work. This should have been brought up in the talk section and a consensus found. I have just begun editing the page recently, and am trying to get it under control and up to Misplaced Pages standards. I have been putting tons of work and time into it. It is not a "fanpage". Is it useful information to the public. What do you suggest be done? - RaptorWiki (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

SPA = Single-purpose account. I answered your question, and SpikeJones removals were wholly appropriate as the content removed was completely inappropriate, along with the rest of the page. Misplaced Pages is not a rumor mill. It has nothing to do with "respecting" other editor's work, as it clearly notes when you edit that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You may have put in "tons of time and work" but none of it was work that fixes the actual fundamental issues of the list. It is an unnotable topic as shown by the unavailability of any reliable sources that actually discuss the toys at all. It is purely a fanpage that should be deleted as it fails WP:N, WP:NOTCATALOG, and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then how do I get citations? The toys are simply released and exist. How is that to be cited? The only place to get a citation from would be Mattel, correct? And they really don't make articles on their toy lines. The main purpose is to provide information to the public; it does not matter how popular something is, does it? If it is in any way providing useful information, it has a place here, as long as it can meet the Misplaced Pages standards. There are many people that collect these vehicles, and looking for information such as this, so I do believe it is "notable". I also see that this does not violate WP:NOTCATALOG in the slightest... - RaptorWiki (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Their existence doesn't make them notable. Again, see WP:N - if the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong here. This is nothing but a fan-checklist and a catalog of toys. It isn't useful information and it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages standards. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I had been removing the rumored sections on the page, and was leaving only the announced releases, as from Mattel. - RaptorWiki (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what an SPA is. That is because it is all I have time for, when I get some free time. And it is one topic I know about that people ask me for information on, and am actively involved in. - RaptorWiki (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) FYI - the same issues exist on Disney-Pixar Cars Mini Adventures, so that article has been tagged and will be monitored similarly. SpikeJones (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've Afded them both. There is nothing notable about either, and I'm not seeing any sign notability can be shown. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)