User talk:Sephiroth BCR/Archive 12

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

WP:FT

I've got an idea for a WP:FT. I want to work on video game consoles made by Nintendo. This would include, at the very least, Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Virtual Boy, Nintendo 64, GameCube, and the Wii. I can handle that. What I am wondering about, though, is what the lead article should be (I'm thinking Nintendo video game consoles or something along those lines), and if I need to include any 'secondary' consoles as well, that are much less popular (I've never heard of these, and I know the general public would never have, too.) Look at {{Nintendo hardware}} next to Console. For instance, I assume that I'll probably have to include Color TV Game, which won't be a problem, but what about the ones in brackets? I'd rather not include those, for the reasons mentioned. Let me know if I have to, or suggestions on how to narrow my scope. Generally speaking, I'd like to include only the consoles listed at Nintendo#Consoles. Gary King (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me the most narrow scope and which articles would probably be included for "Nintendo video game consoles" then? I'm not interested in doing handheld consoles yet (I think I can exclude those, can I?) Gary King (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the handhelds are identified as 'handheld game consoles' while the non-handhelds are identified as 'video game consoles', so there is somewhat of a clear distinction between the two (these are 'industry' terms). Gary King (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rental Magica FLC

Hey Sephiroth, just a quick note to say I've supported the FLC now, no more issues for me, and also to say not a problem to helping out with Gary King's lists. Just a coincidence that he started producing them at a prolific rate at the same time I started lingering arount the FLC area! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For dealing with the vandal on my Talk page -- was that from my report? It hasn't taken me long on Wikipedia to acquire a stalker but I suspect he must know me from Usenet or some forum.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus

Best leave him alone. Obviously he doesn't want to talk about his mistake, so if he repeats it we'll know he's ignoring us on purpose. From what I've read in his archive, he seems to alternate between disruptive and benign. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

About mention of fiction

Could you answer this query on your talk page? I asked the same thing on List of Blood+ characters, yet never got a direct response. I have watchlisted this conversation. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary since it's implied that they are fictional. If it was nonfiction, that would definitely deserve mentioning, but I think any reader by default assume the characters are fictional (there's a pair of images right there to illustrate also). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask an expert on the subject for clarity. Ok if he comments here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, WP:COMICS specifies it here, but I'm not sure what the criteria is from WP:ANIME. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's unnecessary (practically every WP:VG character article/list doesn't as another example), but feel free to bring in a third party. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a link to this discussion at someone's talk page. Just thought I would mention that we had a lengthy discussion regarding this at WP:CMC. I started listing the results at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Lists, but it probably could use some editing for clarity. The quick answer is that we agreed to use "fictional" in lists (or category names, for that matter) when it was not obviously "presumed". Note that something not fictional (Tiger Woods, for example) can appear in a fictional medium, so clarity would be a good thing. (In other words, the use of the word "characters", does not presume "fictional".) - jc37 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. The term "fictional character" has one meaning, while "character" is disambiguous. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not all characters are fictional. Woodward and Bernstein are characters in All the President's Men, but Woodward and Bernstein are not fictional characters. The movie does have some fictional characters in it, though. Wryspy (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The difference from the above cases is that there are no such characters that would need clarification for the difference between fiction and nonfiction. That and there's a pair of images to illustrate as such. I think not including it here is fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes, we do. We write/edit this encyclopedia for readers. We shouldn't presume that the readers know about the topic before reading. So we should "clue them in" through language. So yes, "fictional characters" would be necessary, and should not be "presumed". (This was one of the things brought out in the WP:CMC discussion(s) I mentioned above.) - jc37 08:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. We're arguing over a simple wikilink. Sesshomaru, do as you wish. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, for some reason I thought this was a naming conventions discussion, though as I re-read, it seems to be about a Pipe trick. That said, it still should probably be "fictional characters" for consistancy in usage. - jc37 09:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's superfluous. The opening sentence is analogous to "This is a list of characters in a television series and a series of books created by [original creator]," which clearly indicates that they're fictional (it would be clearly noted if they were nonfictional). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wryspy, do you have any thoughts on how the use of "fictional" should be presented on lists? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

Phew. Star Wars looks a lot prettier now. Still got lots to do though... let's see if I can clean it up for nomination by tonight. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm especially proud of the free images that I've included. I actually had too many so I took a few out. I don't have much experience in adding images to articles, and when I first started at Wikipedia I (like many newbies) added lots of copyrighted images. Times have changed! Gary King (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a pain in the ass, but... Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes. Gary King (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Orochi

I ll work in that tonight (or midnight if we talk about North America time). However, since I dont have the books (they dont sell it in my country) I am not able to put the pages. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes

You have quite a few episode FLs under your belt, so I was wondering if you could weigh in on a issue that has come up at List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes. It seems some of the 4Kids English dubbed episodes aired in South Africa before they aired in the US, and we're unsure how (or if) that should be reflected in the episode list. Technically, we should list the first English airdate, but doing it here would seem to require somehow jumping between US and South Africa. We're also having a minor disagreement on dealing with the lead and the DVD releases if you'd like to weigh in there. Its a complex issue because only half the series was dubbed in English, and right now its just two of us working there so a third opinion would be helpful to break our ties. :P Collectonian (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so I'm completely enjoying building up Featured Topics. I think I posted a message on your Talk page a few weeks ago saying that I could not find the usefulness in Featured Topics, but now, I find it useful in terms of collaboration. It is great to see people get together around a number of related articles and collaborate on them. I enjoy Featured Topics much more than WikiProjects, as the scope for projects are still too broad to interest me. (My interests are all over the place, with a little bit in every possible subject, but not enough to join a WikiProject.) I've added the FTs that I plan to work on on my User page. Feel free to check them out! It certainly adds much more structure to what I am working towards. For instance, before I was working on random articles, but now, it is more rewarding to work on a group of articles, especially since once you've brought one of them to Featured Article status, you learn what the other articles in the group needs in order to reach WP:FA, too. </ramble> Gary King (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the images. I had to hunt for free images. Is it better now? ;) Gary King (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

I have been thinking about my desire for adminship recently, and I am not as enthusiastic about obtaining it as much as I had been a few weeks ago when I first applied for an admin coaching request. I am already aware that at my current state, I would not pass the nomination if my entire history on Wikipedia were to be criticized. I also am aware that Wikipedia would benefit more from me if I continue to primarily be an article builder, first and foremost. Of course, I would not mind obtaining adminship because I have done a substantial amount of vandal fighting on Wikipedia during the same period of content building, and have almost never had a decision overturned, including for WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:RPP, WP:AIV, reverts, and rollbacks, among others. These actions were first done by scouring Recent Changes and New Pages lists. But recently, I have spent more time content building and have come to realize that I already find my fair share of vandalism just by doing that - as you may have noticed, the articles that I usually work on are pretty popular and therefore get vandalized quite a bit (semi-protection tags are not uncommon on the articles I edit!) Anyways, these are just some of my thoughts. I have seen editors apply for adminship in the past month alone to see that when it fails, the editor falls quickly and some of them even walk away from Wikipedia for extended periods of time. This is an experience I would rather not want to have at the moment, considering the... momentum that I am building right now. Please let me know your thoughts, such as my actual chances of getting an adminship sometime in the near future. Oh, and regarding those adminship questions, I have been meaning to get to them and hopefully will sometime this week. Gary King (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, some things take time. For instance, I am continuing to learn about all of the policies on Wikipedia, and recently, have been linking to policy more and more, especially WP:MOS policy since I have been involved in a lot of editing. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Something like this should be the right direction to go in: User talk:Stealth500#Improving Star Wars to Featured Article status. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, then at the very, least, I'll probably wait until Star Wars becomes a WP:FT, which shouldn't be too long. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sephiroth BCR. You have new messages at Gary King's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some reception

Hi Sephiroth, have you seen this review? I saw you commented the article needs more reception. If I find another review I will send it to you. Nice work with the articles, regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here there is another that talks about developments. Here there is another from the same site. A question: are you thinking to pass the article to GA first? See you.Tintor2 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this one. This have a good mention of characters designs and fights.Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaara was put on hold for GA. It seems its just the tone of some sentences.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you know any user related with Fullmetal Alchemist? I have been cleaning Edward Elric but I dont find any conception information. I also found another interview with the voice actors of Naruto [1] but the source doesnt seems very good. Thanks,Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Several changes have been made to Gaara. The reviewer reworte the lead but a user rewrote it later. Could you check it to see if its ok?Tintor2 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About Naruto Uzumaki, should the appearances in other media explain each of the movies? I think it would be better to leave similar to the one of Sasuke Uchiha. See you.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: DB cleanup

I'll be very content once we can do a major revamp on these pages. BTW, would you like to comment on Talk:666 Satan#Requested move? People keep adding speculatory reasons as to why the name "666 Satan" should be utilized over the official English title "O-Parts Hunter". I've cited this guideline, but frankly it's not helping much. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Left my thoughts. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do barnstars have to be substituted?

Just a general question: why do barnstars have to be substituted (using subst:)? Using a template seems cleaner to do. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First article dispute

I'm now involved in my first article dispute regarding the information found in Facebook. The discussion is found here: Talk:Facebook#Launch Date is obviously wrong. This is getting interesting. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think civility is among my issues when conversing online. I've got a few things that I could improve on Wikipedia, but civility is definitely not one of them. Back when I first started using the web, I was on far more uncivil forums than Wikipedia, trust me. Discussing things on Wikipedia is like talking at a mixer for Ivy League professors compared to what I'm used to. Gary King (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, nice. We're babied here in Canada by the government so education is pretty much covered until graduate school. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another orphaned WikiProject?

I completely forgot about the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject 666 Satan 'til stumbling upon on by accident. It appears to have been more inactive than WP:NARUTO was. Think it should be put to deletion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. You can mark it as {{historical}} or bring it to WP:MFD. You might want to bring the subject up at WT:ANIME to see if a simple merge is possible, which would avoid the hassle of creating a MfD. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll consider the merge request. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How is appealing to the scanlation popularity grasping at straws, exactly? All evidence points to 666 Satan being used by the majority of the English fanbase. --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Naruto characters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Dragon Ball work group

Thanks for joining. Arguments there sometimes end up in results that probably aren't the right desision. Sesshomaru is who i've generally seen as a leader for the correct way to go but there are a lot of users working on Dragon Ball pages that aren't experienced (myself included). Let me know if you want some help with something. Funkamatic (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel honoured {^_^} No seriously, I do feel like I'm the only one who maintains many of these pages, in particular, the main character's. With these upcoming renovations, hope we can keep these pages in tip top shape. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Twelve Imams

Hi and Thanks, You've done a good work. I changed one of your edition. Please check it now.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The reviewers have said the table would be better presented as a Wikitable. Can you make a wikitable.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Whenever you've done your valuable editions, please remove my request. Thanks again.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Expanding articles

If you need to expand articles, for instance to make an article to Featured Article, where do you usually go to find sources of information to expand? Such as, for video games? Do you usually just browse news about a game until something interesting appears and use that as a reference for new text that you write? Gary King (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now but only recently have begun actually working on Featured Articles, and I've come to realize that everyone really has their own methodology to building articles. I'm trying to learn more about how people build their articles. One thing I've noticed is that the grand majority of Featured Articles are edited by a single contributor and nominated immediately afterwards; it doesn't really have that whole 'user-generated content' feel to it, but hey, whatever gets it done for sure. Gary King (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I've come to realize that. But, today I found a group of guys who are big film buffs, so I'll try and push out a few film Featured Articles over the next few weeks. The articles that they've edited have their edit counts at about 300 edits per each of the 3 editors for each article they focus on, which is pretty good, spread out numbers. Gary King (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As part-joke/part-challenge to myself, I want to see if I can expand Cobb salad to Featured Article status... any ideas? Gary King (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found that some articles that were once references later on require payment to view in their entirety, so are we allowed to use the 'preview' version of the article as a reference? Gary King (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For some specific things such as quotes, sometimes I can only find them in a preview version so that's the primary reason. Gary King (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Where's the manual of style for using Quotes? Gary King (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Way too many articles!

Man, look at the bottom of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_Seiya
Even characters who just appeared in two pages (like Troll Iwan) and never - before or after that - were mentioned again have their own articles :/
Lots of articles were deleted in the past, but some users just keep restoring them despite none ever made points in the discussion to keep them.
Coming to you because I know you usually help to keep this kind of thing clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.209.166.115 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Using autobiographies as a source for a biography article

Is a person's autobiographical book allowed to be used a source for their own biography, especially when it is used for statements that are non-controversial, such as when a person first enrolled at a university? Gary King (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For Bill Gates I've been removing articles used as references and replacing them with references in books, for several reasons including books are easier to check up on, easier to manage a small number of books than a large number of links, etc. Is this acceptable? Here is what it used to look like, with a lot of links and no book references. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm using another book, not his autobiography, for the book replacements. Also, shouldn't Image:Grabmaljohannes13.jpg be protected since it is on the homepage? Gary King (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of the "Did you know" section, which requires that all images there are protected. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Rukia Kuchiki

Hi Sephiroth BCR, I'm just popping in to let you know that I have completed the review of Rukia Kuchiki. I placed the article on hold and left some comments on the talk page. In any event, have a nice day! --Liempt (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whats up?

Hey I just wanted to know wats going on. Because i'm in school and sooooooo board!Swampcroc (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow

[2]

Welcome to the GameFAQs game data submission form. Using this form, you may submit updates to existing game data, as well as adding new games that we don't currently cover. Once submitted, game data becomes the property of GameFAQs. GameFAQs reserves the right to edit, publish, and distribute the data you submit at will.

The site is user-submitted while the staff accepts it. They don't have a source for that. And like I said, Dawn of Sorrow was put on print again in NA under "Konami's Best", so you're reverting me despite the nature of the website, but ignoring my statement about the re-release of the game in NA under the Konami's Best label. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection requests

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been doing some vandalism-reverting in the past few weeks, meaning that as a side effect, I've been active in WP:AIV. But lately, I've actually found myself attracted to WP:RPP because WP:AIV appears to be taken care of fairly well. WP:RPP seems to need more attention, so I think that's where I'd be most effect if I ever had the mop. I think I'm at about 50 requests for protection and counting so far - it's a busy place and definitely needs some extra caretaking! I'm actually surprised to see so many articles have gone by so long with protection, considering their nature (lots of Axis power-related articles). Gary King (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious about your thoughts on if I had an RFA right now, whether or not it would pass? What areas do I need improvement on? I'd appreciate your input. I've been reading up on recent passed and failed RFAs to get an idea of what is asked of a future admin, and I feel as though I've got a lot under my belt at this point. I'm curious to know if it is enough, though. Thanks! :) Gary King (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're already pretty in-and-out lately as it is :P At the very least, it'd be nice if you could nominate me when and if that happens rather than someone else (or even myself - *shudder*). Gary King (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading through your review right now, and I came upon the part where you were annoyed about my break in December 2007. I was in Asia for all 31 days of the month that month! And I've got pictures and other stuff to prove it :) Also, I'm reading through optional questions right now, and they look like they could be any curveball thrown at you. Yikes. Those will be interesting. Also, any chance you could give me a hint as to when you will be the most inactive in the next few weeks, just so I can time the nomination to be around that time and not in the middle of it? Gary King (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright... feel free to nominate me then. :) Gary King (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI I'm still typing my responses. Please stay awake for a few minutes longer :) Gary King (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made some preliminary responses. Let me know what you think :) (Currently expanding question 2). Gary King (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are asleep now, but if you aren't, then I am just letting you know that I am transcluding now. Gary King (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've pretty much figured out just how challenging RFAs can be. I'm just going to do some article contributions for a few days first, then move on to small amounts of admin-related tasks to start with, very conservatively and taking it a few steps slower than before. I might resubmit an RFA in a few months, but only after I get some feedback from the people that opposed my RFA. Gary King (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm prepping my first chapter list for possible FLC, List of Marmalade Boy chapters. I've requested a copyedit to try to tackle the summaries and grammar issues. I looked at the Naruto chapter list as a guide for what to put in the lead, but wondered if you had any suggestions for anything I may need to change/add to the list? Collectonian (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten all of the summaries pared down some, so they should all be under 500 words. Do you think that will be an okay length for trying for featured list, since 150-300 is good for 30 minute episodes? Collectonian (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistertruffles

From his postings on Talk:Gainax, User:Mistertruffles seems to have an ax against Anime News Networking, referring to site as "hacky fan nobodies" and "nobody, know-nothing bloggers." I've fixed up that reference in Naruto to better reflect what the review actually says, since it was being used out of context. I'm gonna head offline, though, so if you'll be around awhile can you keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't ax it out again or try to remove ANN references from other pages. Not sure why he is suddenly jumping on them as he has never edited any Anime articles until tonight, only music ones. Collectonian (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica at It Again

Hey, don't know if you remember the fiasco from February, but User:Edito*Magica is back to his old tricks on two more episode lists: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. Considering his history, I've gone ahead and put in an AN/I notice after he reverted my tagging both articles. Someone from the TV project has already volunteered to fix up the 2point4 episode list for a potential FLC run, but I'm concerned that unless stronger action is taken and Edito is brought in line, when the work is done he will go into his revert mode because he disagrees with the FL episode list format, and with what leads should have (see his post at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say. to see his attempt to have lead changed).Collectonian (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest, but I'm going to end up violating civility if I keep conversing with Edito on my talk page, and the AN/I is being ignored. Any advice besides just leaving the episode lists to their fate? I'm concerned that when the TV project editor who volunteered to clean up 2point4 implements the changes, Edito will go into full scale edit war because of his refusal to accept the overwhelming consensus on a well-formed episode list. I'm also avoiding fixing One Foot because I hate having to deal with the inevitable reverting he will do. Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

List of national anthems

Do you think that List of national anthems could become a WP:FL without any references? It's similar to List of countries in that that list does not require references for every country to prove that it is a country. In a way, that burden is placed on the linked articles (especially since if the article exists, then that at least shows notability). Gary King (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought of adding a general reference. I will do that now. Also, I added X because I figured that it would be convenient for people who clicked on 'X' in the TOC and assume that it would jump to there. I actually did that just for kicks and was 'surprised' to see that it didn't jump because good user accessibility states that applications should perform and give the least surprise to the user. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)