Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike0001 (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 8 February 2008 (→Fushigi Yūgi and romanization). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

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 reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you. I'm something of 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)?

Re: InuYasha and Date Formats

That's the thing, I've also seen it both ways. I noticed that the dates given at InuYasha were formatted UK style and an entire section was Americanized. What to do? Since the majority of the dates were already in UK style I just went along with it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, really. I've seen it both ways in some articles, and being rather regional, I tend to go for Americanized. I personally only use UK style in articles on UK shows. ~scrounges around in the MOS ~ Okay, it looks like either can be used for the article, so long as its consistent. The only main requirement is that for US-centric articles, the americanized should be used, while UK ones should use the "international" format.  :) Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How does Canada style the dates? I ask this because the English dub is from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the MOS, Canada uses both equally, so either is acceptable. Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We might have to keep an eye on Snapper2 (talk · contribs · logs). I'm not sure what his deal is, but he's almost breaking WP:3RR on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. He is a relatively new editor, so I've been fairly lenient, but if he keeps it up I'll send him a warning as well. Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very new. ~SnapperTo 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...sorry about that, I presumed you were new because of your actions, but since you are not then you do not need to be told, again, that your edits are not appropriate. For future reference, if multiple editors undo a change you make, you should not just keep making redoing it. Rather, bring the issue up on the talk page and discuss your point of view there. In the case of these edits, I could agree that the part "According to Viz" can be removed if Viz is only the publisher of the cited work, however the excessive wikification is completely unnecessary. Repeated wikifications are unnecessary and would only be required to be removed when we take the article up for FA status. If you continue to just revert the changes, you will violate 3RR and be subject to blocking. Collectonian (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other editors reverted me with the explanation of adding unneeded wikification, which I was not doing on the whole; the only link I added was one that Sesshomaru removed when he reverted me, and I in turn reverted him. It was not but negligence on my part. Even then, to again quote WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, "It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article." Links, present or not, are not going to be the downfall of an article. ~SnapperTo 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure act like a new editor. Otherwise, you'd know better than to edit war and hide warnings. Just open up a discussion on the article's talk page if you still disagree with the edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, can you take a look at this? I would like to solve the problems brought up by Snapper2 on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and get Naruto Uzumaki updated per the talk. No one (aside from you and I) commented on the matter and frankly I don't believe anyone else bothers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that seems to happen a lot...someone will complain, but then in the end only one or two people really care enough to do anything. Funny thing is, I don't even watch the show :P Collectonian (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think people who particularly like anime or manga should. {^_^} Well, actually, if you were at one time a Dragon Ball supporter then the show is right for you. Anyways, I'll get the changes done. Thanks for your support, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, never could get into Dragon Ball either. Kinda ironic because it is the only anime my younger brother likes! :P Collectonian (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert for Aria (manga)

Actually, it already has the attention of one -- if I count. I've been working on the page over the past month. At the rate I work -- and the rate I watch episodes for summarizing -- I have a couple more weeks left of cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. I wasn't checking the history, just kinda quick hitting while adding in the ADV manga to the categories. Feel free to remove the tag. I think after I tagged I saw another one you were working on too? Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If so, I haven't noticed. I does need cleanup, which is what I've been working on, but I'll remove the expert attention tag. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I'm still trying to smack around Fushigi Yugi while also working on Marmalade Boy. I still have 6 summaries to write up. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda slowed down once I made a personal pledge to whack one article from the project cleanup list a week. This week, it's the list of Black Cat volumes/chapters (which has a couple paragraphs of summary per chapter -- oy). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get myself to focus more too, cause I'm finding I don't get much done when I'm letting myself get pulled into multiple articles at once. :P Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that. BTW, I moved the cleanup tag to List of Aria episodes -- a split I should have done earlier, but I was waiting to finish filling out the episode lists -- because most of the cleanup issues seem to be associated with that. With the honking big tables out of the way, the main article is, I think actually pretty much a B-class article -- even has a decent start on a Reception section. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I saw that earlier. Definitely needed it. I wouldn't say it was ready for B class though. The character list could, and probably should, be broken out, the anime section has a list that should be prose, and there is a stub section. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. We must be reading the qualifications for B differently. Those are enough for me to say "don't bother trying for GA yet, but it's getting there, so B." —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly...I tend to take a much stricter view of what should be B and up than most, though it also seems to go by project. Film is very tough on assessments, while TV, not so much. Collectonian (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fushigi Yūgi and romanization

I did what I could for the romanization on both pages, though I have some reservations about the episode list; I'd feel better about it if I had the series to check against, as kana readings for more obscure combinations are hard to come by. In particluar, the "星見" in episode 26's title could be "Hoshimi", but the first thing the online dictionary I use gave me was a name and not a deinfition, so I don't know if that's accurate. The four Eikoden titles also has similar problems, so I simply cut them. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much appreciated :) Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rough Collie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mike0001 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)