User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
< Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 >

RE:Dr. Slump

Kemono is not a genre of fiction to begin with. It's a genre of character design. If you want to mention there being lots of kemono characters in the article text, that's good, but the only pages that should have kemono as a genre are pages on paintings and the like.

Even if it turns out that the kemono article is wrong and it is used to describe fiction, the only pages I'd think would need it as one of their primary genres would be stuff like +Anima, where man-beastman interactions are the primary theme of the work. --tjstrf talk 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, sorry how my answer is always NO. Our genre system is an unholy mess right now though, so adding anything unnecessary to it is not going to help.
And yes, +Anima is quite good. Very nice art, good concept and characters, but mysteriously canceled just as the plot was starting to pick up. So be warned that it's going to drop you literally midscene at the end. (The last page has the characters being attacked by a bear with "TO BE CONTINUED" at the bottom. It never was continued.) --tjstrf talk 07:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're in luck! It was uncancelled and completed at volume 10. No clue on the site, since the scanlation group dropped the title after volume 7. I'll e-mail you if I find one. --tjstrf talk 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

666 Satan & Naruto

i have a long response you'll be gettin as soon as i get home (im in class right now and multi tasking just isnt really workin for me at the moment:P), but im curious as to what your question(if there is one) or if its just a comment... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ya, well with the whole 666 Satan thing, the reason i edit so much is i brought it from a small unorganized article to what it is today mostly on my own/with the help of a few people...
and on the topic of similarities, well i never specifically stated that it was only naruto and dbz that influenced 666 Satan, but it has been mentioned in various volumes of naruto (and i also believe 666 Satan, or possibly the other way around, idk) on the back cover where they have writers notes, that dbz influenced a lot of "me and my brothers drawings" and i understand that in the world of art, that influence can come from all over the place (i know this from personal experience as an artist) so i have no doubt that he may have gained influence from various other mangas/artists over the years
but to answer what i think you were possibly hinting at (the fact that the similarities section only has similarities to dbz and similarities to naruto is that dbz bein the stated one in w/e volumes those comments were found in, and the naruto part because of the fact that its his brother who does the series, and to be completely honest we (founding members) have not removed it is that its important enough to note, yet also not just get a passing mention, but my main reason for removing things like the yu-gi-oh comment is that small passing coincidents like that dont seem to merit a section, and i felt like it was one of those things that was like "this series has a tournament in it just as (insert some random series that a tournament)"... did that answer your question though??? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, drop me a line if ya ever are curious about somethin or just need some help with w/e... im eager to help (either work or advice or just w/e) and... ya, peace... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft Conspricy

Lets hope its not a case of mutiple Prince Zarbon sockpuppeting and just a few users making new user mistakes. If not than we might be in some trouble. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already got rid of the Plot summaries on most of the articles, though no one has replaced it with anything suitible. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway Vegeta however is doing pretty good right now, all it needs are some references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: no userfied interwikis

[1] While I agree with your removal of FU images and categories, there's no reason to comment out the interwiki links as well. They are a strictly one-way link (meaning that you couldn't stumble upon User:TimySmidge/Son Goten from ja:孫悟天 just because the former links to the later), and there's no policy or guideline saying that they need to remain off of articles being developed in userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buu

This disambiguation page is absolutely in line with WP standards - I'm really not sure what you're attempting to do with your formatting changes, but they were unnecessary. Deiz talk 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Boy's gender

Are you referring to the fact that Astro's a robot and therefore has no gender? I don't know, to me he's a "boy" robot. He even has a robot "sister", so robots in Tezuka's world may have a gender.

Also, Astro is categorized as a child superhero. Again, to me he's a "boy" so I think it applies.--Nohansen 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeshifters

A very good point. I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:Fictional shapeshifters to see if we can create a more precise definition than what's there. Good call. --Tenebrae 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Shapeshifter category vagueness

I think the Tenebrae is looking for a bit more input on the cat's talk page before anyone unilaterally adds/changes the cat's criteria. It may be best for you to chip in your thoughts there and see if anyone else has something to add. (And yes, I did notice that the discussion was kicked off between you and Tenebrae on you respective talk pages.)

I'd also give the discussion at least a week, or neutrally cross post to the relevant project talk pages to let more editors know that a discussion is happening. - J Greb 06:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dragon Ball

Looks like you did fine on your own. I would love to help out with DBZ articles, but I have a lot of real-world stuff going on right now so I can't. You can see Portal:Naruto isn't even updated very often; I was really hoping that someone else would take an interest in actively editing the portal but that hasn't happened. Maybe I'll get back to editing it when I have more free time. In the meantime, I can only give you a few suggestions:

  1. Remember a portal is primarily for readers, not editors, so think off things that you would want to see as a regular user.
  2. The most vital part of a portal is NEWS so always keep it updated!
  3. You can encourage users to have casual conversations in the Talk Page of the portal. I think it's OK to have that; we have a regional noticeboard for Philippines-related articles at WT:TAMBAY, and a lot of the conversations there are not necessarily related to improving articles.
  4. When you're ready to show it off to the world, you may want to add it to Portal:List of portals.

That's it for now. Good Luck — Sandtiger 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look

I just want you to know that my dad is not User:Peter Vogel. Please look at this. My dad cleary wrote this. P.S. I am not Peter Vogel either. --TimySmidge Jr. 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vogel???

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not Peter Vogel. Never have been and never will be. The evidence you provide of me being him is poor at best. I appologized about the things I said on Project Dragon Ball talk page. This is a very immature way to get back at me.

This edit was made by the one AND ONLY--Lucky Mitch 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to prove I am not Peter Vogel? The sign calling me a "sockpuppet" on my user page has become very annoying and I feel insulted everytime I see it, but at the same time I don't want to remove it because if I do you will most likely see this as incriminating. Please respond as soon as possible.--Lucky Mitch 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the rude "your majesty" comment I made earlier. I have just looked at Peter Vogel's edits and have noticed how serious of a problem this really is. I would just like to add that I was in favor of the shortening of the plots and getting rid of all the "cruft", the thing that I was most trying to defend on this page was mainly the transformations sections of each character as well as the English names. However I have long since gotten over all of that. Peter Vogel's edits are mostly excessive, poorly written, and redundant. I am all for getting rid of this "cruft" as it is called.--Lucky Mitch 05:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD nomination

I've transferred the discussion of Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha to the speedy renaming section of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, since that forum discusses user-related categories and WP:CFD doesn't. You're not the first, don't worry! Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Gulp

Re this edit: can you explain to me why (as your edit summary implies) Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects requires this deletion? It seems to me that that guideline only purports to give examples of useful categorizations, not an exhaustive list. This categorization is useful because it enables someone browsing Category:Fictional drinks to find Google Gulp, which is a fictional drink. —Blotwell 05:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

motorola 68000

Hi, you put motorola 68000 in WikiProject Hong Kong. Why? I just took it out. Potatoswatter 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doki

It's all in the name: Doki means angry demons. Not much of a stretch to assume they are what they're named. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

Yeah, I don't want to cause a problem; sorry about that. It's been discussed on the WikiProject Comics talk page (I don't want to trawl through the talk page archives, but I will if you want) before that even though an article is about a superhero it isn't self-evident that it's about a fictional character. Both you and I know there's no such thing in real life (still there's always a chance someone could put on a costume and run around breaking legs . . .) but Wikipedia articles are written for a general audience. In spite of the character's global ubiquity, we can't necessarily assume when introducing Batman in the first paragraph of the article that the reader knows who Batman is, much less that he is a superhero or a fictional character. Thus the word "fictional' should be there from the outset. As for the body of the article, note the section in the Exemplars titled "Fictional character biography". It says, "The biography of the character. Filling in the first (or primary, if the 'main' version isn't the original) continuity version of the character's history. Note that such a biography should assert the character's fictionality in their biography and should not be written in a manner that asserts that the events happened themselves". There have been several discussions on the talk page that the inclusion of the word "fictional" in the header is more or less mandatory in comics articles.

Of course, there's the simple fact that Wiki guidelines are just that: guidelines. We are encourgaged to ignore guidelines if they interfer with the composition of a well-written article (see WP:IAR). However, in this case I see no reason to ignore the guidelines. As someone who's worked on a number of FA articles, it's become apparent that (at least in the lead) you don't want to assume that a reader has a basic familiarity with the subject. After all, the lead, and particularly the first sentence, is meant to be simple distillation of what the article is about and why it matters. WesleyDodds 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one discussion: [2] WesleyDodds 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a discussion about fictional aliens (as far as we know, all aliens are fictional, but it mentions the need to mention that they are fictional): [3] WesleyDodds 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two more: [4], [5] WesleyDodds 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Notorious B.I.G.

Hi Sesshomaru, I partially reverted this edit you made because of manual of style corrections. Here's a couple of reasons why I changed the edit:

Apologies for the rant, but I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. Thanks. Spellcast 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which wikilinks you're referring to? I don't think low value items like "album" really need to be wikilinked. And the "Murdered hip hop musicians" category does seem kind of redundant to "Murdered rappers" (you can take it to WP:CFD if you wish). But then again, some hip hop musicians like DJs aren't necessarily rappers. Spellcast 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The murdered rappers category can probably be merged into murdered hip hop musicians. There's only 3 non-rappers in murdered hip hop musicians. I'd support a merge if you took it to CfD. And with the wikilinks, linking unbroken redirects is explicitly forbidden in WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. I'm looking through the featured articles of musicians and actors and I hardly ever see "film" or "albums" linked. It provides no additional information from the text, whereas linking albums like Ready to Die certainly does. Spellcast 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Someone accused me of being sockpuppet of you? Thats insane! We used to argue like crazy, and our acounts were created at completely differn't times. Sorry about the Freeza's mother buisness I was reverting back some other things and I thought I was reverting that instead of adding it back, I did not actually add it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS)

I've been trying to have this page redirected to Over the Hedge (video game) ever since you attempted that, see this history page and the discussion one. The problem is that A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is trying to keep it for what I see as not a good enough reason. I told him in my edit summary that it didn't need its own article and although it is slightly different, it could easily be mentioned in Over the Hedge (video game). What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right, it is the same game, and doesnt deserve its own page, hence the reason i moved it. many games have different developers and slightly different features and mentioning this on your page is enough, well thats what i belive. Im gonna revert his edit now. but if he keeps on doing this go to wikiproject CVG and ask them on the talk page. Otherwise you could always put his page up for deletion and let the admins decide.

A good example of different features is Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, where there are seperate characters for the Game Boy Advance. Hoped this helped, ill go revert his edit now. Salavat 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was notible difference between games the nintendo Ds version would of had a different title such as "Over the Hedge DS". Salavat 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already gave him a three-revert warning in that if he does it again he's blocked. I've been considering taking it to WP:AFD, however. Let me finish up a few other things and I'll settle this case. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. seems like he is just trying to protect his creation. just make sure he doesnt revert the redirect again and we are all good. Salavat 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Link to the Past is getting really worked up about this i think the page should be deleted as he seems not to want a merge. if you dont want to tag it for deletion i will , as for now im going offline for a couple of hours, hope you can resolve the issue. 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salavat (talk • contribs) [reply]

WP:HAT

Thanks for letting me know - I've dropped my thoughts in. (Emperor 11:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

2Pac

Thanks for your compliments and your further improvements to the article. It looks as if Shadyaftrmathgunit's edit changed the infobox's color highlights from gray to khaki, in accordance with a color code indicating the type of musician the box is about. Only the keyword with underscores would work for this. See the source of Template:Infobox musical artist/color selector. – Smyth\talk 12:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there anything I've recently worded strangely at 2Pac? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. – Smyth\talk 10:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Majin Buu

The gender thing was somthing that I just thought I'd throw in there, I added gender to Piccolo's page as well. And what do you mean what happened to Kid Buu? Chibi Buu is the original phrase for him, same with Super Buu being Shin Buu, ect. --VorangorTheDemon 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, more elaboration :D I got rid of Kid Buu because Chibi Buu and Kid Buu are the same thing, it's just one's English and the other is Japanese. Also I actually let it pass because Kid Buu or Chibi Buu are not aliases, they are alternate names that he is known by just from people outside the series. An alias is an alternate name that you call yourself as in your alias on Wikipedia being Sesshomaru. The only real alias on the list is Mr. Buu. --VorangorTheDemon 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Genders: Piccolo's is verified, however I don't have the volume, it should be in DBZ manga vol. 6. I didn't add Freeza's, but his<--("his", I'm not trying to jump the gun) father in volume 12 refers to him as "my son", so it can be concluded that he is male. Sanichourou (Guru) on Namek only refers to the Nameks as "my children". I've read volume 6 before and Kuririn asks dende about Namekian females, and Dende states that he does no know what females are because all Nameks are the same. I agree with the Majin Buu unverified gender thing, however, he is constantly referred to as male by both Babidi and the Z fighters. It's just that I find some of this stuff rediculous because for example: Yamcha is male, just because it doesn't say it anywhere doesn't mean that he isn't. Tenshinhan is also male, Giran (From Dragon Ball) is male, ect. Get my point? --VorangorTheDemon 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you the truth, I don't think it really matters, the only one that I think that should be mentioned is probably Piccolo: being that he is neither. I just added it just to add it, but on the other hand, it's rather trivial in my opinion. --VorangorTheDemon 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that ep on Youtube before. Thanks for the link anyway. I don't think that there are any more lost eps, there was a bunch of eps from pre-Namek saga that were never released in English until the un-cuts were released by Funimation like two years ago or whatever; And because of that, the episode count for the Funimation Dub was only like 270-something instead of 291 like it was supposed to be. Ocean Dub has never done the later Freeza saga with SSj Goku, however, they actually did the rest of Dragon Ball Z up through the Buu saga: lots of people think that they only did to DBZ, ep 64. There is a DBZ OVA: "Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans". Not a lot of people even know that this exists. Funimation did dub it a few years ago, but I don't think that they ever released it to the public. I guess that could be considered a "Lost TV special". --VorangorTheDemon 15:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They might have those eps, maybe not though. I'm not entirely sure what ep numbers they'd be, probably 40-somethings. However, they're boring eps, that's why they didn't release them the first time. It's simply eps of the journey to Namek, most of them are filler. I watched that "lost TV special" on YouTube a few months ago. Just look up "DBZ lost movie" or "Plan to eradicate the Saiyans", and I'm sure it'll come up. I'm not sure if it's an OVA, it's more just a regular Television Special that was never released on video in the US. --VorangorTheDemon 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a fan for about six years now, my favorite Dragon Ball anime series is DBZ, however I prefer reading the manga over watching the anime. That's true for me with most animes, especially Naruto, where I hate the anime: It sucks compared to the manga. And I hate GT with a passion, it doesn't have that "Toriyama brilliance and imagination" that DB and Z do. You'll notice that in my edits, I actually don't edit GT sections or articles (VERY rarely I do). Also true with the DB movies, except I actually love the Bardock one, and the fourth DB movie: Path to Power. I bought the Goku Jr one (whatever it's called, it was on sale for $10), and it swore it was the biggest waste of $10 in my life. It's just sitting in my living-room, collecting dust. I'm thinking about selling it, I don't watch it anyway. I'm currently collecting the season boxsets, I have yet to get season 3 though. I've seen all of DBZ like 3 times, English and Japanese. How about you? How long have you been a fan? What's your fav series? --VorangorTheDemon 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since you asked for it.

This is the category that's full of Pokémon articles with section headnotes. Oh and do a one special favor for me. Go here make a section and explain to everyone on the WikiProject why you're doing this. You should do it because if you make a discussion on the Project, then everyone will understand why you're doing this.

I now know why you're doing this, but you should inform the WikiProject so people won't revert you like I did, if you know what I mean. TheBlazikenMaster 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, I was trying to be polite when adding the comments to your talk page. If you are speaking of the section I added to the talk page of the page you reverted, I removed it. TheBlazikenMaster 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a discussion here. You're welcome to reply if you want. TheBlazikenMaster 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character

The Manual of Style stresses that we must make clear the distinction between what's fictional and what's not when writing about fiction. As a look at this page makes clear, you have been told this. Unless someone wants to go through and remove every single in-universe statement from an article, one of the simplest things to do is to state up front that the article is about a fictional character. Never assume that it's implicitly clear to anyone. Write like you're writing for a schizophrenic person who is smart enough to read but not readily clear on what's real and what's not without being told. (Yeah, they won't all believe when told, but believe me, some will.) Wryspy 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction). You can also look up other material about writing in-universe. Wryspy 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pichu

Hi, I saw the hatnote was placed at the very top of the page. However, Pichu redirects directly to the subsection List of Pokémon (161-180)#Pichu and not to the top of List of Pokémon (161-180). If the reader types "Pichu" in the search bar and directly arrive at the subsection, they don't even have the chance to see the hatnote. WP:HAT#Placement is about placing them above images/infoboxes etc, not about placing them in a way where they have no purpose :-). Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects/categories

Well, sorry, but some redirects have categories. I just know about the characters, and I'm so sorry if that's bothering you.Kitty53 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the idea! Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had given me an idea! Thanks! Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for any help, I was just telling you thank you for giving me an idea for a new category. Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't need help creating anything for that moment! It doesn't take hours and hours to respond! Anyway, I was thanking you for giving me an idea for that new category. Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has become the subject of a weird discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Lord Sesshomaru! PrimeHunter 05:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan article

Don't worry about that weird edit you did. I know you enough to figure it was a mistake. I know I can be a bitch sometimes and find a comedic pleasure in giving people a hard time. :D Tootles Sesshomaru! --VorangorTheDemon 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I knew about that. I saw him take his name off the list of members like two weeks ago or whatever. I was like "what????" when he did, he always seemed so involved. --VorangorTheDemon 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Sensui

I'm not sure if Sensui is a family name or if it is something else... I'll look at my Shonen Jumps and see what is going on with his name. WhisperToMe 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title speaks for itself. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Case

I have closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Peter Vogel. The results may be found at the bottom of the page. If you have any follow-up questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. Ken was blocked and has not edited since, BSDB has not edited in nearly a month, and blocks are not punitive. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough evidence to go to Checkuser, but it could be blocked as an SPA in the future as well. Keep an eye on it, but I don't think the account will become active again. If it does, it can be blocked. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

While checking the GA nomination for Batwoman, I happened to notice that you'd nominated Bulbasaur for GA status. I thought I'd take a look at it possibly to evaluate it for you, but then I noticed that the article is protected due to an edit dispute. Word of advice: An article is really unlikely to achieve GA status when an edit dispute is ongoing, and if it fails to get GA this time, it will be harder to reach GA status any time sooner. You'd probably stand a better chance if you un-nominate it for now and then re-nominate it later, after the edit dispute has settled down and the article has stabilized for a while. It's just a thought. Wryspy 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a guideline I referred to once when reviewing an article for GA status. This isn't the particular guideline I was looking for to help you, but it's related: Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Not_checking_the_history. Wryspy 07:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'll just leave it alone and let someone with a fresh perspective evaluate it. Wryspy 20:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Spider-Man: Friend or Foe

You continually revert edits that list characters despite the addition not being sourced. Why, exactly, is this required when the game has been released and thus the information is easily verifiable? Surely the game the article is about is a reliable source for which characters are in the game, so why the need to remove Lizard, Prowler, Nick Fury and Mysterio from the list? Dac 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurama poll

I closed it :) WhisperToMe 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received enough info yet. I'd leave stuff as is for now... I'll try to confirm how his name is used. WhisperToMe 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sort it by Sensui - He is addressed in the VIZ comic as Sensui. :) WhisperToMe 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the redirects are redundant. Some people spell names differently (i.e. Dragonball instead of Dragon Ball) - So redirects are there in case people prefer other spellings. WhisperToMe 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a Goku and Bebi redirect, no one's going to type those extra long names if these exist & are much more common. Capsule Corporation and Dragon Ball Canon are just as ridiculous. What do you think?"

Yes, those redirects exist, but some people try different "names" other than "Goku" and "Bebi" - E.G. Gokuu, Gokuh, etc. Besides the alternate spellings of that we also have alternate spellings of Dragonball - We have different standards for redirects than for articles. Generally I would have those redirects kept. They prevent creation of new (redundant) articles. E.G. a kid cannot make an article at "Goku (Dragonball)" WhisperToMe 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goomba, Koopa Troopa

If my argument were at least stronger than "no argument at all", mine would then be stronger than yours. Your argument is nill unless you can tell me any one enemy or species that would be well-known to the mainstream reader. The Koopa Troopa and Goomba species are in more games than most main characters, Koopa Troopas are the species that comprises the main villain as well as many minor main villains, and has appeared in every single Mario game to date. Goombas were present in the Mario movie, and on top of that, are more well-known than any other enemy, Koopa Troopa notwithstanding.

What I want to know is why you suddenly decided that my argument was not good enough. Exactly what about "most well-known enemy species in video game history" damages Goomba's importance? Under the logic of the assessment scale, that would say that no other enemy species is even comparable to their notability or importance, and would not be of low importance in gaming, but rather no importance. Goombas and Koopa Troopas are featured in many of Nintendo's merchandising. This is highly uncommon with any species of creature in video game history. Goomba was the first enemy to ever appear in the best-selling video game ever made, Koopa Troopa was the first enemy to appear in a Mario-titled game. That's more than enough to warrant mid importance (low importance implies that they are of little importance, which would mean that coverage of any enemy in the history of gaming is unimportant). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Associated acts

Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts says to put "Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act; groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated." It's not necessary to put every musician they've collaborated with, only the most common. If an artist only collaborated with someone in like two songs, I don't think it's needed. It tends to clutter up the infobox. Spellcast 06:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point

Captain Marvel articles diam was there for a long time and nobody messed with it. There's other Captain Marvels that somebody else could be looking for. Also check out http://www.dcuguide.com/Bm/Bm_626.php and the Tim Drake for Caroline Hill ref.Brian Boru is awesome 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tezuka page: spam?

Sesshomaru, I'm new at this, so forgive me if I'm talking to the wrong person. From the history page, I think you're the person who added the "may contain spam" message to the Osamu Tezuka page. I looked at the links, and they look OK to me, with the possible exception of the one to a non-english language page, cyberia. Is that your objection, and if so, should the link just be removed? CouldOughta 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Sesshomaru, thank you for your encouragement. CouldOughta 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome

No problem watching the list of Saiyans. I basically have all of wikipedias coverage of Dragon Ball on my watchlist right now (and boy is it giving me Wikistress). I was thinking of protecting most of the Dragon Ball pages though. It would really allow us to work on the articles rather than have to revert edits by some random IP. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith and NAMB in general

Again you are sticking to an overly strict interpretation of WP:NAMB when, as I've explained in a number of venues, it is perfectly within the guidelines to make common sense exceptions and this is such a case. Matt Smith (illustrator) is classed as an American comics artist (either by himself or someone who knows him going by the edit history) so it isn't unreasonable to offer a link up the main disambiguation. I don't do this in all cases but feel it is the most helpful and least messy solution.

I can only assume you are doing this either to make a point or to have your own way as the entry is being used as an example of an exception (although technically the example should be Matthew Dow Smith as the confusion was between those two entries) - as you have done similar edits to examples I have used in discussion of NAMB (which other editors noted as being possible making a point). Your throwing around of unjustified accusations of ownership issues (at me and other editors who disagree with your strict interpretation of NAMB) seem to reinforce this impression.

Your edits may be sticking strictly to the word of the guidelines but I'm afraid your use of WP:NAMB to remove all hatnotes is not keeping to the spirit of the guideline and is not consistent with the actual nature of guidelines. NAMB is there to stop runaway use of hatnotes - it isn't carte blanche to remove every hatnote from non-ambiguous pages.

I'd recommend you read WP:GAME - you may not realise that is how you are operating but a lot of your edits make sense when seen in this light. I was in particular confused about your various edits around The Sandman (Vertigo) but reading the page in more depth (after using it as an example of how sticking to the rules can still be less than helpful) was enlightening - in particular the use of protection immediately after reverting the entry (point 2 of WP:GAMETYPE), accusing myself and others of ownership issues, vandalism and personal attacks (point 5) and my above comments on the implementation of NAMB (point 4).

Now I'm sure this is purely accidental and all the result of your desire to do the best by Wikipedia but your sticking strictly the the word of the policy is not allowing other editors to use their common sense to judge things on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully, if you read through what I've posted above (and on other discussion we have had on this topic) we can move towards resolving this issue, which currently is disrupting the usual free flow of editting. Especially, as this is a relatively minor issue. (Emperor 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Again you are mischaracterising my views despite stating it various times. I am not against WP:NAMB (and would argue against its removal) and operate perfectly well within it (and the nature of guidelines). I certainly don't think every non-ambiguous page should have a hatnote - only where it could prove helpful which has to be judge on a case-by-case basis.
The information on Matt Smith (illustrator) being a comic artist is already in the article - he is the winner of the Xeric award (which is an award to comic creators) and he has drawn this comic [6]. Enough to qualify him as a comics artist. (Emperor 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your bold move

I just wanted to say that I completely understand (and somewhat agree as an editor of Wikipedia) with your edits on the Goku and Yamcha articles, but I will also say that I am less then happy with how they look now. It's not so much the random edits that bother me, it's the frustrating guidlines and policies that we have to follow, and most of the articles that conform to the policies and guidelines are both boring to read and look like shit, but in a professional and organized way. I will also let you in on a secret: I've contemplated leaving Wikipedia for a while now, it's too much work, and too much stress here. I've had more arguments, debates, and wars here then on any messege board I've ever been to. Also often articles that usually have good purpose (but not much verifiability) are deleted, making it harder to edit related articles. It's beginning to get tiresome. What do you think I should do? --VorangorTheDemon 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to invade Sesshomaru's talk page, however I really don't think you should leave. We are currentally losing a lot of great Dragon Ball page editors, our wikiproject is in danger of dying out. If you are really feeling stressed out, talk a wikibreak, it really worked for me. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a Wikibreak DBZROCKS, but it doesn't make a difference, because when the break is over and you come back, you're right back where you started. To answer you're question on my page Sesshomaru, yes, I do spend most of my time at Youtube (DrHannibalLecterMD) and some at MFG and Daizex (DemonKingPiccolo). I've told people there that I edit Dragon Ball pages here on Wikipedia, and quite a few of them say that the stress with supplying verifiable info and dealing with the daily vandalism isn't worth it. Not to mention that they've told me that they think that Wikipedia sucks simply because anyone can add stuff to it. But then again, I don't want to leave like SUIT did. He just up and left without warning. I think Heat took his name off the list yesterday too, but then again, due to his duties to this country, he could only edit occasionally. --VorangorTheDemon 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, I must say that the problem with wikipedia is that any one can edit it, IPs are the main source of stress, though what allways keeps me going here is that I know eventually we will have our Good article Dragon Ball articles. This wikiproject is really hard right now because of all the differen't dubs made by Funimation that are screwing everything up. Also, really besides maybe Daizex, there are virtually NO Dragon Ball sites on the web that don't completely stink up the internet. Anyone being able to edit also is a strength of Wikipedia because it allows people like you, me, Sessohomaru and Poetic Decay to enlighten the unenlightened. Of course it is stressful but I think the pros are more plentiful than the cons. Also I must know, how long was your wikibreak? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I didn't answer all you're questions is because I'm not sure what I want to do. I haven't spent any time at the Dragon Ball wiki in months. The issue with these articles is that most of the info isn't verifiable became most of the interviews with Toriyama are long gone, and also the fact that no one has the Daizenshuus or Kanzenban manga volumes because their either in Japanese or in French, and extremely rare to come by in the United States. The only true info we have is from the Manga, but those are in black and white, therefore any claims of colors (often debated Super Saiyan aura color) is pretty much unverifiable. So when it comes down to it, the biggest things that I'm stressed about is not only the vandalism, but the absolute jack shit that we have for verifiable info. I have heard about them, but I have never seen a Toriyama interview other then the ones that they've been having recently in Shonen Jump. I know Shonen Jump had one with him a few years ago, but I can't remember what issue it was, my copy of that issue was lost ages ago. To answer DBZROCKS question, my Wikibreak was about a week and a half long. --VorangorTheDemon 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Three weeks? Trust me, taking a month or two long wikibreak like I did can do a load of good. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unvarified Content

Hey Sess. I have read the unvarified content, and I also have something else to say: I am about to change all of the saga articles. They will all be redirected to one article rather than having a million articles for one subject. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is begining now. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that as well. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change is completely done now, however lots of information needs to be added. Tomarrow I plan on creating the pages Dragon Ball GT (plot) and Dragon Ball (plot). DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bad idea, trying to fit 580 manga chapters plus 64 episodes into one article would be chaos, not to mention really, really long. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, however, these particular subjects are loaded with out of universe info; many of the sagas have references to other media, the original Dragon ball in particular. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (disambiguation)

I fail to see why you assume my edit was in bad faith. The edits I undid were not valid. "Comics and TV" was not a proper description and "Adventures of Superman" does not conform to the purpose of a disambiguation page as clearly outlined in the commented out sections of the page. As such, I reverted them. If you disagreed with that, you can go ahead and change it again, as you did. It's true I did not describe my reasoning for reverting, but that is not just cause to assume bad faith, especially given the amount of attention I give that page. Rhindle The Red 01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

It appears to be a sandbox. --Closedmouth 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMB

Hello, regarding my edit to Shinigami (Bleach), I wasn't aware of the guideline on hatnotes. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I understand you (and the guideline) correctly, these notes are put on the most general case (for example, Golf) where someone might be looking for another meaning such as VW Golf, but not on more specific pages where someone has already typed in an exact term like Volkswagen Golf. Is this correct? --Kyoko 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]