User talk:A Man In Black/Archive11

List of Advance Wars COs

Dear self:

Revert more or less back to this version, while doing cleanup along the way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request if possible

I've been working on the UNATCO article. I've been trying to gut it of fan speculation, remove the factual sounding fiction, and condense it into a factual correct article from the perspective of outside world. I'm thinking of eventually condensing all these Deus Ex fictional organization into one article.

To get to my request, I was wondering if it's possible for you to resurrect the old Silhouette (Deus Ex) article into my user space. I want to see if there's anything worth saving. I would appreciate it much if you could do this. --Mitaphane _talk 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MM

If you are going to propose a merge, please state your opinons why you wish to do so. You have been randomly tagging articles since at least July 2006 without stating why you think it should be done. Please read the guidelines. --Pinkkeith 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one in particular you're talking about? The Mega Man merges I brought up at Talk:List of Mega Man X characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing

Okay, so, perhaps I overreacted towards your being bold (even though I still don't agree with what you did). Make-up kiss much? :<>

Additionally, I was wondering if you were interested in joining a group devoted to discussing and listifying/merging/redirecting articles. I'm trying to get people from all fields, and was hoping you'd give it a chance and I would try and ensure that all views were taken into account and respected. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linky? I might be interested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you just didn't like me anymore :< but then I remembered that you don't leave messages on others' talk page much. But here it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only know a bit about comics (I mostly hang around WP:CMC to help with what I do know and contribute template know-how when it's needed) but I'd be happy to help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poke Ball

you know it's just my luck... every time someone does something to an article that I'd like to discuss with them, they put up a wikibreak sign.... basically i question your removal of the images at poke ball. the latter part of the article is used to discuss the variety of Poke Balls out there, and offer information on specifically notable balls (e.g. Master Ball). The images are used for the purpose of eliminating redundant prose, "This ball is green on top and white on bottom," and illustrating the evolution of poke balls themselves throughout the series. Perhaps with a more detailed intro parapgraph under "Varieties of Poké Balls" you would find the images more appropriate? My final point is that Wikipedia claims no policy on the use of montages and this article is drastically reduced in quality by the removal of these images. Your statement of "variations on a theme" sounds familiar but i couldn't find it on the policy pages about photos, perhaps you could help me out. I'll give you a few days to respond with ur POV before I change it back, but because you removed the images instead of just commenting them out, if there are a lot of edits made I may put the images back sooner. -Zappernapper 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm around. The Wikibreak is over.

That article needs major cleanup. There's no need to be describing every single Pokéball in explicit detail in that article; we don't need a field guide to identifying Pokéballs, but instead some encyclopedic summary prose explaining that there are many types with a few representative examples.

This is also a copyright/fair-use issue. We need not to have dozens of fair-use images when one and some prose suffices. WP:FUC is clear on this, and WP:FUC, unlike many other rules, isn't flexible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you concede that a full paragraph for "Master Ball" is necessary? It seems to be one of the most notable. That, along with the notes section from "GS Ball" seem to me to be the only information worth keeping. Are you also then proposing that instead of a table, just describing in prose the differences in poke balls brought about by each generation is adequate? I understand your point about a "field guide", but remembering that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - there's no reason why one can't discuss a topic in an in-depth manner. For example take a look at Seagulls. The gallery at the bottom does indeed represent a "field guide" to seagulls. While more specific information about each gull is located on its own page, types of Poke Balls do not merit their own articles, so a table is introduced to represent a list. Would you be satisfied with a "See also: List of Poke Balls" ? and tansporting the tables there? I never thought it neccessary because it's not quite expansive enough that i feel it slows load times down. Assuming a table of poke balls is of encyclopedic value (I am, but you may still not) the second question is of fair-use. You directed me to WP:FUC and after reading through the list of requirements I found that the images seem to meet all the requirements. I say seem, because there are a couple reuqirements that may be subjective, and another I don't completely understand. Your main disagreement with me seems to be #3. "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible... Do not use multiple images... if one will serve the purpose adequately." Again I cite that "field guides" serve an encyclopedic value for visual comparison and the images maintain their relevancy because the article discusses each of them. For example, one could write that, "typically different pokeballs feature different colors on the top and remain white on the bottom." Insert a pic of the standard poke ball, a hyper ball, and a safari ball. "However occasionally the entire ball can become differently colored." Insert a luxury ball pic. Seems adequate enough for standard balls, but then we have to go on about how poke balls in the anime and movies can vary widely (Crystal Ball, "Chansey Ball"). And write prose and still use many of the pictures. Then when a speficic ball gains some notoriety another paragraph needs to be worked in there. But what if someone writes the paragraph, just tagging it on the end? Is this alright because it's the newest data? Or should it stay grouped with other poke balls from its generation? It just seems like the tables are the best way to maintain the data and present it in an easy to read format. In regard to WP:FUC number 5 seems met, and 8 seems to be another point of disagreement we may still have. Also, number 6 is the one I don't quite get, perhaps (if unmet) you could further explain it. Finally, asking the test question, "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" I find myself saying no, when talking about how the giant stone poke balls were used to capture the giant claydol, if i wanted to illustrate just how big these balls were (giant to someone could be 7 ft high), there is no other adequate image to use. BTW, I'm fairly certain the Johto Balls (like this one [1]) were created free content, but they may have been cut out of the TCG cards (i don't know enough about the TCG to make this assertion). Additionally, the screenshots are technically taken from different episodes and movies so I believe that having one image from each is not considered "too many" - please direct me to a discussion if i'm wrong. Thanx 4 taking the time 2 read all this, and happy editing -Zappernapper 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't need a list of every single Pokéball. It's overly specific info of interest only to hardcore fans. We should certainly describe them in general terms, but all of these are variations of a single design so we only need one design. The Master Ball doesn't need a full paragraph (unless it's way more important in the manga or something); it's just another Pokéball in the games only you only get one per game and it always works.

The giant stone Pokéballs are exactly what we shouldn't be describing in detail. They appear in exactly one episode of the anime and never appear again. They're nothing but trivia.

As for free content, a dozen images of Pokéballs, from any source, is not going to be acceptable, no. It's not really possible to make a free alternative, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so you don't feel the mentioning of the stone poke balls in the context of variance or orgins of poke balls is signficant? in fact the idea that ancient pokemon were of gigantic size is expressed in two episodes. in an article about the poke ball i don't get how its orgins (however little mentioned they are) aren't important. i concede though the mentioning of the "chansey ball" is prolly the most trivial entry in "Other Poke Balls." I realize you are coming from the perspective that you'd like to keep cruft out as much as possible and fiction comes under more attacks than other categories (you like merging, check out a majority of animal species), but for comparative purposes the mentioning of different pokeballs seems justfied. Were the number ever to get unmanageable i would agree with you, but as of yet there are relatively so few that it's very feasible to discuss each one, and explain it's differences in a table. Again, I cite that Wikipedia is not paper [2]. Also, while considered a poor argument, i'll reverse the Pokémon defense to ask if Seagulls can post a dozen images birds that are prolly of no interest excpet to a few avid bird-watchers or locals, then why not the same for Poke Balls? Many pages, and even real encyclopedias, offer images of differences within a group. The only time a full list can't be propagated is when the amount is too cumbersome (I would not agree that a page on the AKC should have pictures of every recognized breed, and since each breed, say under terriers has its own page - images of all the different terriers is not appropriate either). Perhaps we have a difference of opinion as to how much encyclopedic value an image can add to an article. Personally I find images much more helpful than someone's personal view of them. An article on Van Gogh would lose much encyclopedic value if his paintings were removed - I don't care how well they are described in prose. To me, "information important only to hardcore fans" includes detailing every time Beedrill made an appearance in the anime, likewise how many people really care how many eggs the Dolphin Gull lays? They aren't apparently notable for being either endangered or having an unusual number of eggs. I understand the guidlines proposed in WP:FICT are strict, but as a notable aspect of the game variations in poke balls are important to discuss in detail - along with the history and symbolic significance gleaned from the anime and movies. (also the Master Ball entry discusses it's significance outside of the world scope, along with its appearance in the anime) -Zappernapper 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it'd be nice to know the Pokéball's origins. Making up an origin based on conjecture from two episodes isn't going to cut it, though.

Also, those images in the seagull and terrier articles are free images. These are not free images. The rules are much stricter for fair-use images.

The problem with "gleaning" info from the anime and movies is that much of it is listing one-off objects or conjecturing based on things implied or mentioned in passing.

The Master Ball section is exactly the sort of cruft that article just doesn't need. Suggestions on what Pokémon to use it on? A mention of a one-off appearance in the anime (with no reference to what episode, of course)? Discussing using a glitch to duplicate it?

It's not important to discuss every variation of the Pokéball in detail. Instead, it's important to write an encyclopedic overview in summary style, aimed at a lay audience and drawing from reliable sources. Right now, this is a highly detailed description of every variation of Pokéball, aimed at a fan/enthusiast audience and drawing from the anime/manga/games. That's not what Wikipedia is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for a late reply, i've been ill, and don't have much time even now. I can cite the master ball episode as easily as anyone who knows about serebii, but i don't think that's the main issue. the origin isn;t made up, and there shouldn't be conjecture. This is why just listing the appearance of the balls and relating the info said in the anime is what's been done. I was saying that this info is useful for people who want to know it. And again, if the mention and casual overview of each ball is included in the article, WP:FU allows the use of those images, as detailed in my first reply to you. I wasn't using seagulls as an excuse for the images but as defense against your "field guide" argument. Poke ball is meant to be a centralized discussion of all things poke ball, little detail is supposed to go in each "Notes section" especially if it's one time info (the crystal ball the girl uses in Secret of the Unown) those "one-off" references are most pointedly aimed at the "Other Balls" section? that section does need cleanup, and i'm not sure if images should be included there (except maybe having a sub section of it titled Early Poke balls for critical analysis - the fact that while early pokemon were consistently huge - the anime has shown two methods for containg them). The master ball entry as cruft is an opinion - i could state that listing every weakness and strength for the fire type on Quilava's page is "not needed" (and i have - in vain). The fact that it is often used on legendary or rare pokemon is an established fact that would not meet with any serious disagreement. the two pokemon mentioned are not recommendations, but examples of rare legendary pokemon (reread the paragraph) - their names are easy enough to remove though. The glitch (again not saying to do it, or even how, barring an argument that this is FAQs-ish) caused a phenonmenon (that's a little over-the-top) in the real-world - people exploiting it specifically for that purpose, this is not disputed and accepted as fact. I was under the impression that a fictional subject's effects in the real world were worth mentioning in an article. You have constantly been referring to the list as "important only to hardcore fans/enthusiasts" except for the "Other balls" section i can't agree that someone who has just bought the game would not find this information appealing. Or even a layperson who decided to look up the article. Again - the argument of cruft is fallacious, especially since there is no policy or guideline concerning it. Only things that fall under WP:NOT are excluded, and I'm trying to eliminate them, maybe i haven't been doing a good job. Sentences that tell the locations of all the hidden Poke Balls in RBY are definitly FAQs-ish and How-to, but those things are all aggressivly removed. You'll have to provide a better arguement than "cruft" and specifically mention a policy or guideline that states why listing what a small group of items in a video game do is not allowed in Wikipedia especially if the use is to demonstrate the evolution of those items in the game over time. -Zappernapper 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) PS, I won't be home until much later today, so i'll prolly respond tomorrow.[reply]

There's a great difference between telling people how to best play a game and describing real-world impact.

As for Wikilawtering about WP:NOT, what Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia, and all of the rules exist only to promote that idea. Right now that page is a highly specialized fanpage, not an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a great difference between telling people how to best play a game and describing real-world impact." - we are in complete agreement here. I actively remove prose written in this article that says things like, "You only get one Master Ball in the game, so when playing RBY you should save it for the battle with Mewtwo." Apparently you don't see anything better with:

"It is the games' rarest Poké Ball. In the original games... there was only one to be found. Since ..., there have been ways to get additional Master Balls, but the player still only finds or is awarded a single ball.... Master Balls are so rare and powerful that they are normally used to capture the rarest of Pokémon, like Mewtwo or Lugia."

I'm at a loss due to confusion. That is what people have done. It is not something even remotely likely to be disputed, but if you'd like i could point to the hundreds of FAQs out there telling people to do that and the logical sense that it makes as proof. If this is not what you're talking about then pls better explain y you feel I'm happy with this article "telling people how to best play a game" and i don't understand what "describing real-world impact" is.

In response to your second statement - WTF is wikilawtering? My use of citing Wiki guidlines and policies in my defense? I feel the artice (a large majority anyways) as is does serve as an encyclopedia article. You feel it doesn't. I'm not trying to flash them in your face going, "SEE! SEE! lemme do what i want!" I'm offering them up for a re-reading so you can try to understand where i'm coming from. I've been giving lengthy explanations about my thoughts on the matter and you seem to write them off with a few sentences, largely ignoring any points i've made. you don't give any examples - just your opinions. I've gone through and added the names/numbers to episode references like you mentioned were lacking (ironicaly i missed the Whiscash one still), but i don't think that's your main concern. The rewrite tag has been up there for a long time, and i haven't removed it because i agree it is still in need of work; many prose sections could be completely rewritten - a few of them have, references should be added, and the tables are still "under contsruction". No one seems to interested in writing about it on the talk page, even whoever put that tag up, i haven't bothered tracking down who it was to ask them their thoughts, maybe i will.(added 9/27/06)of course it was you why am i not surprised? lol well you must admit that the page has come a long way from its humble beginnings... Please give examples of highly specialized fandom, and if it's the list of pokeballs - re-read my previous arguments and respond to those. I think it may be best to move this onto the talk page as anyone else editing it could take advantage of it. -Zappernapper 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I don't see any value in a "field guide" to Pokéballs, especially given the utter lack of a basic encyclopedic overview. It's of interest to fans only, many entries can only be game-guide-only info, and such a list cannot be sourced save to direct observation of the games/anime/manga. I removed the images because they needed to be dealt with immediately, but the whole list desperately needs to be removed and replaced with a prose summarizing with examples, instead of listing every single variation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok... check out this. let me know what you think, preferably on its talk page - that way i can be more quickly aware of it. it's not wholly wikified, but we're going for content here. cheers! -Zappernapper 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POKE... busy? -Zappernapper 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life intervened. That's the sort of thing we need to be aiming for; it may not end up looking exactly like that, but if that prose replaced the gigantor tables, it would be a great start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i gathered as much, same with me, was just surprised when i came back 3 days later and you hadn't responded... any suggestions for improvement? happy wiki-ing! -Zappernapper 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you prefer to discuss things on your talk page, but if i'm going to make this drastic of a change, i feel like people need some kind of explanation on the actual Talk: Poké Ball page, so I'm copy/pasting the pertinent discussion there. If you have any further comments about the changes please discuss them there for the mere sake of ease. Whenever you archive this discussion a broken link at the talk page saying "See here for why i made this huge change" won't really suffice or allow others to give input on it. If you'd like to delete the relevant discussion and add a link to the Poke Ball talk page, that's fine, it'll save space here on wiki. -Zappernapper 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've brought back some of the images on Poke ball, wondered if you could have a looksee and tell me if it's too many fair-use images. one question i have for you about fair-use that dosn't seem to be answered at WP:FU, is "too many" in terms of the number of FU images in general, FU images from a particlar genre (say pokemon), FU images from a specific medium (TV screen shots), or FU images from a single context (single TV episode). i was trying to save time but now realize i littered ur talk page with FU, no offense meant XD -Zappernapper 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I'm done with this infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Hurray! I am glad to see you are helping Fram. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may end up being bigger than helping Fram; it's shaping up to be both a graphic novel infobox as well as possibly code that could be imported into the other boxes to handle translated comics in general. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, man, you better lay low for a while. "They" will be after you. But seriously, I'm glad to hear it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Base Set

Why did you revert the Base Set page? I first saw that the early Pokémon sets did not have any articles so I added it. (Iuio 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

They don't have articles because they were merged into a list. Why did you split it out of the list? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because the newer sets had articles. (Iuio 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why is it that you don't touch the articles on the newer sets? They are basically the same as the Base Set one (minus the list of types of Pokémon, that is). (Iuio 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The new ones just haven't been merged yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that prove? Other card games like Yu-Gi-Oh! have seperate articles for each set they publish. (Iuio 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So? There's no information in those stubs that I merged that wasn't sourced directly to personal observation or personal experience. If you think you can write an article sourced to reliable sources about an individual set, feel free, but you're probably better off working on Pokémon Trading Card Game, which is currently dire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you don't think Pokébeach is a reliable source? The articles for other sets link to it. Or, if that's what you're aiming at, I can look for a source quickly. Since that's the case, why don't you merge the other articles on the newer Pokémon sets? (Iuio 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey wait, you're the guy I talked to in September 2005, about the Pokédex entries right? Remember? See: User talk:24.86.124.111 (Iuio 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That link isn't a source for anything but a checklist, and checklists emphatically do not belong on Wikipedia. Do not revert that again if all you're going to do is split out the appropriate prose from the list and add an inappropriate checklist. You haven't addressed or even bothered to address any of my concerns. I haven't merged any of the other sets because I have had other concerns and I'm not doing it now because I'm currently on a stop on a two-day bus ride. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any infomation you suggest I add to the page? (Iuio 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What are your concerns? Explain them and I may be able to adress them. (Iuio 15:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There isn't anything to say, and you're adding a checklist and a pile of fair-use images, neither of which are appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SW Collabaration....

Hello just dropping in to let you know that I'm organizing a huge Star Wars collabaration, if you want just go to this discussion page..... Cheers, --Sadow (talk | contr.) 19:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft alert - help

Creatures in the Metroid series it split up into three pages and goes into such detail about so many characters that I'm drowning here. Would like some input here - can this all be condensed down into a single character page? I can't help, unfortunately, because I've never played a Metroid game (yeah, shoot me now). Hbdragon88 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes :( Why in the world is there a list of EVERY type of enemy encountered? In a creatures of metriod series article, there should a section for each type of weapon (turret, space pirates, chozo, etc.), not a little minientry on every subtype of enemy. Merge and rewrite IMO. — Deckill e r 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superherobox

No offense, man but the superherobox looks amatuerish and like a infobox not a superherobox. Also the affialiations are way too confusing. It stinks. Brian Boru is awesome 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy issue first: the affiliation code is really confusing only because it's got a bunch of legacy support. In practice, all you need to use is the alliances parameter.

As for the rest, the intention was to make it look like an infobox. Can you explain better what your objections are? The only major style change I made was to remove the color scheme, per discussion at WT:CMC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man ZX and the Metroidvania Genre

I'm going to refrain from re-adding to the article for now because I'd like to avoid an edit war over this and both of us are coming fairly close to the 3RR as is, but what exactly is your problem with Metroidvania being listed as a Genre (or, more correctly, sub-genre) for this game? Adding that Megaman ZX is comparable to Metroid and more recent 2D Castlevanias and explaining how would only serve to repeat information in the Metroidvania article. Furthermore, the term is something which has seen use in both print media and in online media for comparing games using a gameplay formula like the one seen in this game.

Adding the tag doesn't take up space and DOES provide a wealth of information about similar games. The Metroidvania article is both well-sourced and fairly detailed, so I really don't understand your objection here. Lankybugger 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR. Nobody but you has ever described it as that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, OR would be me making UP a genre like Metroidvania. Like I said, Metroidvania has been used fairly often to describe 2D platformers that fit into the basic concepts of Super Metroid and the more recent 2D Castlevanias, mainly consisting of a one main contigious map and powerups which allow the player to eventually progress farther and farther through territory which they've not yet covered.

Please read the Metroidvania article before you continue to discount the edit as OR. It's been thoroughly fought over already and is quite well sourced, something I'm pointing out for the second time. I'm not the one who pointed this game out as fitting into that category, and again... after the links I posted in the edit history I don't see how this game doesn't fit into the general Metroidvania description. Again, I'll restrain from edit warring with you for now as I'd like to reach a consensus or at least a mid-way agreement on this... but that seems hard when you don't appear to be investigating any of the information I've presented. Lankybugger 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple process I use to identify OR. I ask, "Who said that (such and such fact) is true?" If the answer is "The Wikipedia editor who added it," then it's OR. If it's someone else, then that someone else should be cited. In this case, the person applying the term seems to be you. If you can cite someone describing the game as a "Metroidvania", then add it to the article and cite it. Until then, please don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "unnecessary duplication," I strongly disagree. If the game is often compared to similar games in reviews, the Mega Man ZX article is definitely the place to mention this. We should be concentrating more on what has been said about this game rather than on direct observation of the game itself. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, a recent game FA; the article is written almost entirely without reference to the game itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go...

This calls Mega Man ZX a Metroidvania. Toastyfrog says the same thing. This page says it in French. This is discounting all the forum posts which came up in the google search, which are of course non-notable themselves and can't be used as a reference. I'm re-adding Metroidvania as a genre. Cheers, Lankybugger 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you now that maybe there should be a paragraph on all the comparisons to Metroid and Castlevania, so I'll take a run at writing that for the article as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with the edit summaries A Man in Black has said in the article. The term is in no way official and is a fan made classification, and shouldn't be called an actual "genre". It should go in the critical reaction section. Also, maybe this issue should've been raised on the actual talk page instead of here.. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spin my wheels the other way. There's no such thing as an "official" genre, merely terms with widespread currency and those without. It's silly to be splitting things into "official" and "unofficial". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we worked this out, and thanks for the support in regards to Metroidvania as a genre. My apologies for not thinking to pull up some specific citations before I added this. Lankybugger 05:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest mentioning it on Talk:Galatasaray. I don't know anything about that article, myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on Pokemon episodes

because you seem to have been very active at List of Pokemon episodes i'd like to draw your attention to this discussion at WP:PCP. I'm interested in getting feedback and input from as many editors as possible. THANX! -Zappernapper 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST

I respect your opinion, I'm getting bored of people wielding WP:LIST like a big club during AfD debates. I was thinking of putting it up for MfD but that guideline has such a strong suport I'm sure it won't last long. And I was wondering if there is anything we can do to stop becoming swamped in lists of all types? Whispering^(talk/c) 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep converting them to prose and merging them to an appropriate article. It's not like any job on Wikipedia can ever be truly complete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Image

What do you mean by representative? Because the MP7 image is almost 3 years old and her appearance has changed since then.

Because it isn't representative of her appearance in the bulk of the games she's appeared in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont understand what your saying here, are you saying because shes looked liek that in more games thats how she should be represented? That doesnt make sense.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We shouldn't use her specialized outfit for one single recent game, but instead the most-common, most-recognizable appearance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should be using her Mario Kart DS art, no?

That would be her in a dress sitting on a kart. What's wrong with the current image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No your thinking of Peachs art. I jsut dont like her current art because even in game (mario hoops) her face is different then any past art, and not to mention her skin has more color. I know she may be in her sports outfit but before long her Strikers art will come out and who knows how shell have changed then.

These are extremely minor differences. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say extremly minor, if the only thing you dont like about the Hoops art is the fact shes in her sports clothes then I think you should let it slide cause I'd rather show current character design then past. But I guess I'll just leave it up to you cause I dont wanna keep editing it to do that over and over again.

So youre saying its correct to get rid of the rest of the pages with trivia sections right? Asking to make sure.

No, I'm saying that nothing in that particular trivia section is worth keeping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal on Mew page

Why did you remove the information on Mew being a giveaway at Toys R' Us I put on there? It came from the official Pokémon website. 71.221.226.106 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)71.58.211.22071.221.226.106 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon TCG

Dude, I want to make a complete database style thing for the TCG, like of all the sets and promos. Tell me why you dont want to do that?? I mean why do you have a problem for that anyway?? I just find it unbelieveable that you would be so against having all the sets going back to the base set and promos too. I mean theres articles on here about gym class and bananas. Why can't there be pages on here about them. And I don't want it just to be the new sets as already on there. The new sets suck. I mean why is this just such a problem to have them on wikipedia?? It seriously blows my mind you wont allow them on here...

That's an admirable goal, but it's not part of this project. If you want to make a database of all the cards, feel free to find some hosting and go ahead and do that. This project is for encyclopedic overview, not in-depth description of every single object. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want a total database of all cards on here. I see lots of individual databases that are like only for the older cards or new cards. I want a total one. And what do you mean by hosting anyway? Im just confused to what your alternative would be. Like I just think that this has to be somewhere on wikipedia or something. and you say encyclopedic overview. I see bands pages all the time, and i just was gunning for something similiar to that. Like you go to an album page of a band, you will see all the songs and everything. Why cant we do that same format for all the sets involved in pokemon tcg, both nintendo and wizards eras? you get what im saying here, cause with that kind of mentality of what your saying, shouldnt we delete all the album pages of bands or at least their older album pages?

Wikipedia is not the place for a checklist of every single card in the Pokémon TCG. It's a guide, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine but can you please point me in a direction on where to put this stuff. Like I know theres some wikipedia sister projects. I know of uncylcopedia. thats it though. Is there one of those sites things like halopedia? Also Im looking at that "what wikipedia is not page" and i cannot seem to find anything relating to not allowing a list like that on here. What section of that "what wikipedia is not page" would this problem be under?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, nor a how-to guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nothing really seems to fit that as i tried saying before. nothing even close. tell me where it says that in there. a quotation would be good. cause there is nothing in there at all that comes close to not allowing a checklist besides the title 'collection of information' which is actually contradicting what an encyclopedia is. Each set is in themselves important in one way or another and should not be glossed over.

A checklist is a directory of cards. If you're looking for a verbatim quote, you're not going to find it; Wikipedia's rules are codified practices, and not written in strict, legalistic specificness. These checklists are better suited to a site catering specifically to Pokémon TCG collectors, because this site specializes in encyclopedic summary and overview. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I at least include a small page about all the promo cards? theres alot of them really.

Why not mention them on the list of sets? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

You changed my opinion about succession boxes on fictional articles a few months back (reference). Now that I'm fighting for their destruction (more or less), I was wondering if you could weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sucession boxes. Thanks! EVula 19:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Heroes on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elemental Heroes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benten (talk • contribs)

Destiny Heroes on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Destiny Heroes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benten (talk • contribs)

Abyssinia, Henry (MAS*H episode) Review

Mr. in black, I'm sorry to disappoint you but the article you just assessed Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode) doesn't meet the criteria see criterion 5 which says that it needs to be stable. How can an article be stable if it has been created the day before. Please continue to review following the WP:WIAGA criteria but be careful when reading these criteria. Cheers. Lincher 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee, Mr. in Black, I like that. My mistake on the stability check; I assume people don't bother sending articles to GAC at all until they're stable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say your not the one having done this mistake I count myself in that category too. Thanks for reviewing the articles. It would be great if you participated in the discussions on the talk page of WP:GAC as there is a heated debate over the need of inline citation requirement or not. If you don't feel like doing so, fine with me. Cheers, Lincher 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That debate is radioactive and I'm not touching it. The articles to which it applies aren't articles I'd be reviewing anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion

Did you delete all the new pages? If so, wouldn't it be better to just wait and see whether they're real or not, and then correct the mistakes? Because it just so happens they were 99% legitimate. --Lividore 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're clear A1 candidates, and I did mention I was going to do it on the Pokémon Wikiproject. Completely contentless substubs mass-made with a template aren't needed, due to the ease of hoax, speculation, or other harmful or useless content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor little feller was just tryin to help...........

And it was a good-faith effort to boot; I'm not calling it vandalism by any means. It's just not a good idea to have these contentless, unverifiable non-stubs laying around, and I'm empowered to clean up just such a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for you to kill

Happycat sighted at Britishblue1.jpg. flagged for copyvio by ptkfgs. Have at it. =) --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 03:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comiccharacterbox

I noticed that you merged Template:Comiccharacterbox. I created it because Template:Superherobox and the other comic infoboxes don't cover a large number of comic characters such as Little Dot. I am not against merging it, but we need to have an infobox for characters who aren't a superhero, supervillain, or supporting character for a superhero. - Peregrinefisher 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, SHB does that. SHB is the grant unified comic character box, be it a normal person or a race of creatures that are nothing but protoplasm and tentacles. I'm going to propose a rename to something that makes this more clear, but I've still got functionality stuff to do and people are still dithering about colors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seprate Pokemon episode pages

The episode pages are fine. Stop vandalizing them. (Bobabobabo 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This has been discussed at length on WT:PCP, and is the beginning of preparations to merge them into lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are planning to do with them? How are you going to merge them into list they are already into lists

Probably into lists based on season, with headers per ep and terse plot summaries. The structure is still a matter of some discussion, and your input at WT:PCP would be much appreciated. Merging all or nearly-all of the episodes is a foregone conclusion, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to remove these then??

(Bobabobabo 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Good question. They may still be useful (compare List of Metal Gear series characters with List of recurring Metal Gear characters). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me out with this guy? He keeps reverting to versions with all the pictures that he uploaded. Ryūlóng 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do with the images????? That Bobabo- person and a user name Mitsumasa where adding the images as a team (If you look at their user talks. So may you please put the images back, I was gonna print the pages, and there where no images. Thank you (Yugigx60 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Probably get rid of them. They're not strictly necessary, and we shouldn't have fair-use images except when strictly necessary, per WP:FUC #3. Sorry about that, man. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are gonna get rid of all of the Pokemon episode images, You need to get rid of all of the other anime episode images too. (Yugigx60 03:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

::::No, no, no! I don't want articles for those. Absolutely, positively, unequivically not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How says that you have the authority on what we can and can not do (pages).. We as contributors can do want we want (expect vandalizing) so if we want to do episode pages that have the (badge, evolution of Pokémon, or a character (re)joins or leaves the group).

The fact that I argued passionately and convincingly, as part of a lengthy discussion (part of which is now archived) at WT:PCP. This isn't some sudden thing; it's been a long time in the making. You can make whatever unencyclopedic stub you want, but it will be merged when it is found. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please keep the images, all (most)of the episode lists have images:

So if other animeepisode pages have images, why can't the Pokemon series??

For:

Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles.
Screenshots of television shows which are released for promotional purposes are more likely to be fair use, especially low-resolution screenshots.
Many lists, including featured lists, currently use fair use images.
Most if not all images comply with the current fair use criteria, are tagged with relevant templates (such as {{DVDcover}} or {{tv-screenshot}}) and provide a rationale on their description page.

(72.177.68.38 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Albert_Wesker

Could I get your opinion on this page? User:ShadowFox S.T.A.R.S. Keeps re-adding several paragraphs with only the backing of "fans speculate" and "Rumors say", as well as removing some citation tags added. I've asked the user to cite some sources besides fancruft (via talk), but that hasn't happened. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augh, it's terrible, and that user's just making it worse. That article is about ten times longer than it should be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey now! I didn't contribute every little information on that page. A bunch of other people did. I have only done three sections of that page, but that is it. As for the information that I was lacking for the media section, I was in the process of searching for the resources. However, I think I will be placing that on hold for the time being. - *.:.`ShadowFox` S.T.A.R.S..:.* 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving WP talk:PCP

Do you think I should archive Wikipedia talk: Pokémon Collaborative Project? It's getting quite long. If I archive it, I think I would keep the FFA's and Things to do until Saturday. So should I or not? Alvin6226 ^talk 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I was thinking of archiving it myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHB

Could you please remove the comma between species and home planet? It's grammtically incorrect. You may notice I bumped around in the template as if in the dark but reverted my clumsiness.

Additionally, could you apply the applicable updates to the superteambox and the supercbbox? The latter needs to figure out what "status" is supposed to mean, and whether it should be used for series, trades, or story arcs, all of which have are the subject of articles that use the template. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to the to-do list. The new infobox for trades is {{graphicnovelbox}}; it's specifically adapted to handle them. As for miniseries and series and the status field in scbb, hell if I know at this point. I was headed to bed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Spector

Hey! Can you help me out on the Warren Spector image thing? Still have trouble with this whole image source thingy.... I got the image from Flickr and edited it in Paint Shop Pro to make it look better. ZFGokuSSJ1 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know:

Who took the image
Where you got it
What license it's released under

If it's not released under a compatible free license (that means a free license that allows commercial use and modification), don't bother; we already have a free image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

You aren't going insane. It's very unsettling to see the users on that page using merged article groups on a series with 20 games as an arguement for a series that only has a handful. I might be bold tonight. — Deckill e r 02:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can safely say you aren't going insane =P — Deckill e r 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply. I was going to, but I pretty much agree with what Deckiller has said so far, and that user seems a little combative. Thunderbrand 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobabobabobabobabo

He's back and uploaded hundreds of images, including reverting the redirect at List of Pokémon Original Series episodes. Ryūlóng 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you can just look below. Ryūlóng 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

This sorta has to do with all of this, so: I cannot seem to get to box off the image in the {{pokepisode}}, but now the image is showing up; is this all right? Ryūlóng 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're massive fair-use violations. The fact that other articles have massive lists of fair-use images due to outcry from people who think their fandom should be exempt does not mean we should repeat those mistakes. These images fail WP:FUC #3 in the most egregious possible way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why'd you set up an image parameter? Ryūlóng 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. When I adapted the template, I made sure it wouldn't show an image. It was based on and is replacing a template that does use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Well, I've removed the parameter from the template, as well as on the episode pages themselves. I'd keep an eye on Bobabobabo's contribs, because through my actions, he knows of the template and in fact tried to superimpose the digimon template over it. Ryūlóng 08:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ragnarokmike and Mitsumasa might need a close watch (as well as a purge of their upload logs). Ryūlóng 08:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be a headache, but it always is when you're cleaning up the cruft from someone's favorite fandom.

As for images, I just don't know what to do. I can't tag all of those without semi-automated tools and a faster connection, neither of which I have. I might just ask someone in IRC to send a bot through Category:Pokémon media and tag all the orphans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's really interesting? This, this, and the earliest page moves. Ryūlóng 08:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Bo Bobobo Bo-Bo (or something fairly close) is an anime character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. But Bobaboba blocked for page move vandalism and two hours later Bobabobabo registers and moves the sandbox from one user to the other? Ryūlóng 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, Bobabobabo hasn't been vandalizing and has been a good-faith user ever since; I'm not really planning to dredge up stuff like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, Yugigx60 (talk · contribs) contacted an outside admin and got the template protected on the version that's a duplicate of {{Digimon episode}}. Ryūlóng 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Yu-Gi-Oh! articles

Would you mind telling me why are you deleting vital information on many of the articles, such as Dark Magician and Winged Kuriboh? The Legendary Ranger 12:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for source material (especially copyright violation source material) nor is it the place for game guides. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POKEMON IMAGES

Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. (Bobabobabo 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So does prose, and prose doesn't involve unnecessary fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon S. Kennedy. Too much Trivia?

I don't want to pull out a discussion, but why do you keep posting the TMT alert over the article's trivia? It has alredy been greatly shorted and cleaned up, and I really don't think that it should be still considered as too much. Other characters, and even in other videogames, has larger Trivia section but are mostly ok. Honestly, do you really think that it is still too much trivia?

You can answer here, I'll keep your page on sight Alexlayer 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any trivia is too much, frankly. Anything that needs to be mentioned should be mentioned in a more-relevant place, anything that doesn't need to be mentioned doesn't need to be mentioned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there is so much trouble with Trivia sections, they are everywhere, in videogames, anime, manga, even in films. And Leon's Trivia is alredy way too short, specially compared to before, where it was about the double of its size. I've tried to clean up the trivia so that the TMT message wouldn't have to be there anymore, but it seems like you would like the whole Trivia section to dissapear, which, in my opinion, wouldn't be right.

Trivia sections are bad. They're just miscellaneous info crammed into a section, with no thought to organization, importance, or relevance. If you want to keep the facts currently in the trivia section, I suggest finding more-relevant places to put them in the article. The fact that many articles make this mistake does not mean it should be repeated or encouraged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90

you removed the relevant information about the fn p90 featuring in video games. the information is cited if you follow the link to the killzone page DARRe N^TALK 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited to direct observation of the game and conjecture. That's not a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Hi there! I have restored Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask which you deleted. While I absolutely agree that this was a frivolous nomination and an obvious speedy keep, I think it's a bad idea to delete AfD discussions, especially since it had been linked to on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. —Stormie 11:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A malformed AFD that's almost assuredly trolling meets G3 and WP:SNOW. If you really want it preserved as a record, I don't really care, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGES on Template:Pokepisode

May we please have images on the Pokepisode Template.

also may we do separate episode pages. I personally will keep a watchfull eye of vandals.

Note, I will also go to every single Pokemon episode images and add the Fair use rationale, so they can be allowed on the episode list pages. (Bobabobabo 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I think images are good for the articles, and as long as images are conveying and adapting on central themes of the plot, they pass fair use. Can we have a discussion on this? H ig hway ^Daytrippers 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, isn't it? Ryūlóng 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metal Gear series

On the Solid Snake page, you can see that the Metal Gear series box swallows the SSB box up. I tried adding a div but that didn't work. The table is open and cosed and as far as I can see all open divs are closed. Can you fix this? Hbdragon88 21:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiXan

The block was inadvertent. I believe I misread the diff and had thought that user responsible for the next newer edit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous

Now he keeps removing a warning I gave him for creating that template saying "Mets501 said they could have images." Ryūlóng 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think warnings are productive. Direct him to WT:PCP#Images on episode pages, that's all I can suggest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope the RFCU is done so we can see if they really all are the same person. It's all too similar for them not to be, including Bobabobabo's knowledge of the situation when Yugigx60 was online. Ryūlóng 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPISODE IMAGES fair use rationale

If I go to each image and give them a fair use rationale may we keep the images?? (72.177.68.38 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No. That's only an aggravating issue, not the real issue. The real issue is that hundreds of fair-use images are being used where prose would suffice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean. What about we write a summary about the episode based on the image. I see alot of episode guides that has 40 - 20 images. Which the images make the episode guide look pleasant. FULL OF COLOR, the images described whats happening in the episode, but the summary helps with that.. but why are their images in enyclopedia's? What is so bad about the idea about seperate episode pages. I personally will keep a watchfull eye on the pages. (72.177.68.38 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Making an episode guide look pleasant is not sufficient reason to be using so many fair-use images. This is not a fansite, but instead an encyclopedia that is made specifically to be freely redistributable. (That's the "free" in "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia.") Adding too much of other peoples' copyrighted material hurts that core goal.

As for separate episode pages, this has been discussed at length on WT:PCP. There's just nothing you can say about those episodes other than things based on direct observation of the episodes. That's original research, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do the other episode lists that have images aren't considered fan sites???

Huge, malformed list removed

Look at are those images!!

(72.177.68.38 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That's the second time you've posted that list to my talk page and I'm still unmoved. No, those pages shouldn't be using images that way either, for the same reasons. I do, however, know when to pick my battles, and I'd rather justify it to a project where I'm a longstanding member than to people I don't know.

WT:PCP#Images on episode pages is really the place to bring this up, as all you're doing is repeating arguments to someone who has already heard them, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if those pages are allowed images than Pokemon should to. I am going to ask Jimbo about why those images can be on those pages.

They aren't allowed, that's the point. I just don't want to get into a ton of fights at once. Going to Jimbo is unlikely to get you the answer you seek (if you get any answer at all), but if you feel the need, I'm not going to stop you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You been around since 4 August 2005 that is not a long time!

March 2005, actually, but what's your point? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't they allowed? All of the images have the {{fairuse}} and where the uploader gound the image

Because they aren't needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes they are.. So what can help with the summary on the episode template? (72.177.68.38 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The images would only be needed for identification, and prose does that effectively. That's why they're not needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is prose??

Words. Ryūlóng 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like most shows on wikipedia there are seprete pages for the episodes. So I think its stupid. Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info So what do you think of all the links I provided... Are all they fancruft to????

YES! Now, stop edit warring and go and discuss this on WT:PCP, where everyone in the project but you agreed to merge these articles into lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some images

I notice that you are merging the Pokemon episodes which sounds like a great idea, but may we keep some episodes for example the finale episodes for example End of a Journey, Yet Beginning of a Journey and the first episodes Pokémon, I Choose You!, Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!, Get the Show on the Road. (72.232.215.170 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why? Why do we need images in addition to plot summaries to identify those episodes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<_> sorry i actually meant (keep some episodes). (72.232.215.170 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why? Is there some third-party commentary in reliable sources we could use to make articles on them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding in Pokepisode template

Yes, when there is nothing in the English title the Japanese Romanji and English title is blod, may you change that??? (Bobabobabo 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, although I'm not exactly sure what you want changed. Let's discuss it at Template talk:Pokepisode. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Hi there. I was watching the 1 October deletion review page, and I noticed that you removed a discussion and there was no entry in the corresponding log. As you can see from this edit, I added the entry to the log. I thought I'd better let you know, in case that was the wrong thing to do. As you closed the disscussion, you could also change the wording in the log to "deletion endorsed", as it looks like the discussion was snowballing that way anyway. Or put something else if you like. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I was watching that page because I have an open deletion review there. Is there a set minimum period of time before someone closes a review, or is it just when an admin decides to clear up backlogs? Carcharoth 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel any need to log trolling requests, but if you want to, I don't much mind. As for the time it runs, yes there's a ime, no I can't remember what it is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

I am not sure how to source fan reactions other than fansites, which you claim to be bad sources, but I think the popularity of an anime is based on part by the realization of the fans feelings of how it was edited by foreign distributors. Oft times than not a series will notice a change towards the way the fans wish to see it if possible including edits such as swithing opening and closing themes. This not only shows the following an anime has, but the response by the distributor to make the fans happy. So in order to source fan reaction how does one go about doing that when a)fansites are not viable sources, and b) the article itself says no to add more external links, and c) without trying to show favoritism to one fansites over the mountain of others? shadzar|Talk|contribs 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minority viewpoint being pushed over general reception. When you're saying "fans" there, you're saying "internet- and import-savvy" fans, which is a small fraction of the fanbase for any series that is successful in the mainstream. Please forget what you think and what your friends think and concentrate on what's said in reliable sources. If this overlooks the internet-savvy fanbase, so be it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I agreed with the responses in the English adaptation editing and response to section, but it does exist, and from what I was told fansites do NOT make good sources for the very reason you mentioned. While English adaptation is the only one shown on this English site, should others appear for other languages I am sure those who have been trying to prevent vandalism will surely protect their content from distorting the facts solely to the side that has been shown. So without the opposing side view or knowing where it resides then how can both sides of the arguement for the critisism to the edits be presented? If the "fans" are opposed the the editing methods made doesn't that reaction represent enough to show how the market adapts to the fans needs? Likewise for those who are not fans of the show wouldn't their view of the editing be indeterminate of the show or books since they do not follow it? Kinda like the review that stated the movie Final Fantasy The Spirits Within was just like the video game which was a biased opinion rather than neutral since he didn't seem to know about the different version of the Final Fantasy series, or their premice being the same for ALL role-playing games. As I said I enjoy the filler anime episodes even though they are not canon to the manga but didn't entirely remove all the content cause I didn't feel it didn't belong. Just try to find out where the line is drawn on opinions and critisisms. MAybe instead of destroying all the content int he article it would be helpful to those who are making it if something were placed on the talk page (if even a link to the proper section of Wikipedia that describes use of opinion) so that the article can be made better for all readers, experienced in the topic, and casual readers alike. Thanks for the help and explanations. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only bears mention if the fans' opposition was so voiciferous or pervasive as to be noted in reliable sources. I'm not really worried about the current wording of the filler episodes ("There are filler episodes" instead of "There are filler episodes which are bad") but the "fan reaction" to the various edits is unsourced and apparently unsourceable waffle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sections you have deleted. I've bolded anything that has to do at all with fan opinion.

===Criticism of anime adaptation ===/

- By the time the Sasuke Retrieval arc ended (episode 135), the anime was at a point where it was quickly gaining on the manga, its source material. At the conclusion of this arc, the anime immediately switched to anime-only filler episodes to allow the manga to broaden the gap once more. Many fans were disappointed because of the lack of significant plot and character development in the filler saga. However, had the anime's production schedule overtaken the release of the manga's storyline, the plots of the anime could have completely differed from the intended plot of the manga, or would have been cancelled completely, both of which have happened to several other manga-adapted anime series (for instance, Rurouni Kenshin). Most of the filler arcs are stand-alone stories, with a few being several episodes long, unlike the adapted manga arcs which can cover roughly thirty episodes.
[...]
===Editing and reaction to editing===/ - Leading up to the series' English-language premiere, a number of fans expressed fears that it would receive a treatment similar to that of One Piece, which was heavily edited and Americanized to a TV-Y7 rating for broadcast in North America. [Comment: This is a commonly accepted opinion, as well, and could easily have been worded so that it is stated as a fact]. Surprisingly, Naruto was aired with a TV-PG rating in the US and a PG rating in Canada. -
- Many elements that were expected [Comment: Again, I'm only bolding this for your benefit of the doubt; in comparison to other Toonami dubs, this may very well be fact instead of opinion] to be edited out of the broadcast version were left intact, including references to alcoholism and mild sexual situations, Japanese cultural differences, mild language, and even blood and deaths were still evident.^[1] The manga was treated just about the same.^[2] The uncut broadcast of Dragon Ball Z featured these same elements, but they are still rare among Toonami's other series. In addition, the opening music and scenes for the show in the first two seasons was changed significantly, but the background music during the episodes remained the same. They have since switched to one of the Japanese themes for the third season, but still use a different set of scenes. The uncut DVDs contain the original credits for each episode. -
- Cartoon Network also made some extra edits in addition to those done by Viz Media, which is evident of the fact that Canada's YTV network contained fewer alterations. These are fairly minor, such as toning down the amount of blood and other injuries. The accidental kiss between Sasuke and Naruto was also edited out for obvious reasons (though it is made clear that it happened), but later shown during a flashback during the Land of Waves arc. -
- The first uncut box set, which was released on July 4, 2006, contains no edits, with the original vocal themes completely intact, as well as the opening theme, "R*O*C*K*S", being subtitled. The dub was left unedited for the DVDs, and thus has a few instances of harsher dialogue, with Naruto, Sasuke and Kakashi saying "bastard" and "damn" on occasion, Sakura saying "hell yes!" and the word "kill" being used more frequently. -
- Several small token edits have appeared in the North American manga, the most notable being the removal of Neji Hyuga's manji and replacement with the cross that was used in all versions of the Naruto anime to avoid confusion with the nazi hakenkreuz. The English version of the Naruto manga was left more intact than the anime, but was still censored to fit a younger audience. -
- The UK version shown on Jetix is the US TV version with extra edits, in spite of the fact that it's shown during prime time. In general, these edits remove the following: portions of the violence and references to violence (i.e. someone threatening to kill someone else), references to smoking (including an old man smoking a pipe), weapon usage, and nudity (in the form of Naruto's Sexy Jutsu and Harem Jutsu). To edit scenes, Jetix either cuts a scene completely, does a momentary freeze frame to avoid showing an offending scene, or crops a scene to cut off the items in question. -
- The UK version of the Uncut DVDs was released by Manga Entertainment's UK branch on August 21, 2006, under the title "Naruto: Unleashed". In this release, UK-orientated subtitles are used containing various British-centric naming conventions, such as "Art of [jutsu]" for the techniques instead of "[jutsu] Jutsu". The use of "sensei" is also replaced with "Mr." or "Ms." and Ramen is referred to as "noodles", unintentionally creating some humor when Naruto's pass-times, most of which involve Ramen-in-a-cup, are referred to in the subtitle as "Pot Noodle". British slang is also used in place of more common terms, such as Sakura telling Naruto to "stop giving Sasuke evils" (slang for a dirty look) instead of just telling him to quit staring. -
- The UK version also contains the "Sponsorship" cards from both the opening and the ending, which are usually edited out of English DVD releases, the card inviting viewers to "Tune again next week!" and a full set of English credits.

That's all that should have been deleted, and for the most part, that could have been reworded. There was no reason to delete those entire sections.

Now, I understand that you are against cruft, and I support that. However, there is a huge difference between cruft and information. UK dub edits may have been cruft on the Italian Wikipedia, but this is the English Wikipedia. This deals with all primarily English speaking countries, not just the United States.

Again, I endorse your determination to wipe cruft off the face of the earth, but I (and at least two other users) feel that you're getting a bit overzealous about it. Next time you want to delete entire sections, can you at least bring it up on the relevant talk page first? You Can't See Me! 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dub edit lists were ridiculously overdetailed original research (albeit not a bulleted list). Once you're looking at X and comparing it to Y instead of looking at published sources' commentary on the subject, you're heavily into the realm of original research. Additionally, "However, had the anime's production schedule overtaken the release of the manga's storyline, the plots of the anime could have completely differed from the intended plot of the manga, or would have been cancelled completely, both of which have happened to several other manga-adapted anime series (for instance, Rurouni Kenshin)" is pretty speculative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the differences between a dub and its original series, no matter how obvious (The similarities in music, manjis being replaced by crosses, etc), are still considered original research? And pointing out that uncut DVDs were released does not confirm that there were changes in the dub? Or, more prominently, the releases of uncut DVDs are not worth pointing out in the least? I'm sorry, but can you please explain how none of that can be on the article? You Can't See Me! 06:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manjis being replaced with crosses is an obvious change?

My point is that you need to stick with what the sources say, instead of drawing your own conclusions from direct observation. It'd be fine to rewrite that section, but it needs to be based on published sources instead of direct observation, to avoid inadvertantly pushing a POV by focusing on trivial or unimportant changes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I'm really sorry about misunderstanding your edits. Still, can you mention what you are about to do on the relevant talk page before saving a large edit like that? I apologize for wasting your time... You Can't See Me! 06:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't sweat it. Time spent explaining an edit like that is never time wasted. I'm used to just doing things and explaining when I'm challenged; it's a bad habit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forking

Now, because the template is unprotected, whatever anon is Yugigx60 forked {{Pokepisode}} to be another {{Digimon episode}} fork. Ryūlóng 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How pointless. {{Japanese episode list}} can display images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFIV

I shortened the story section so it now fits entirely on one screen. I also replaced the image you wanted replaced. Many of the details which aren't important to the plot have been removed, including referencing important characters such as three of the four Fiends. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just length, I'm finding, it's style. I hate to be moving the target around on you, it's just that this plot summary is deeply unsatisfying and I can't entirely explain why. Brilliant prose is such a know-it-when-I-see-it kind of thing, and this isn't quite there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deck and I looked at it a bit more and did a bit of reworking. Also I replaced the image which you never crossed out. Try it again. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also understand your "brilliant prose" thing. This is more of a relative term, and what is brilliant to one person may not be to another. I don't want to make the prose sound too, well, for lack of a better word, high-class, as the article is targetted towards the average human being who doesn't know anything about the game. That's why I aim for comprehensiveness, however, I tried to be as concise as I possibly can. If you've played the game, you know I left out a large fraction of minor trivia, and I eliminated more and more as well as lengthened short sentences. I'm actually in the middle of a technical writing course right now. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. But you forgot to actually vote for it. Thanks again. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Anime-Editz - Naruto Editz Guide". Retrieved 2006-04-14.
^ "Naruto Censors and Edits". Retrieved 2006-04-14.

[1] "Anime-Editz - Naruto Editz Guide". Retrieved 2006-04-14.

[2] "Naruto Censors and Edits". Retrieved 2006-04-14.

[1]

[2]