User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 16

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 15

Archive 16

Archive 17 >

Discussion at Talk:Ganon

Few days ago I started a thread here regarding the cats you took off Ganon. Would you mind sharing your thoughts there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll check it out. - jc37 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can fly

Does this include "divine" characters like Aang and Ganon? If not, it should say so in the article. And I'd also like to know if we're only supposed to list characters who actually have their own articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Except for issues of length, I don't see a reason to restrict a list to those who have articles. In fact, that's one of the benefits of a list over a category.

Noting that any character which doesn't have it's own article (where,presumably such sources exist), should have an associated source indicating the reason for inclusion.

As for "divine", it's already noted to not include fictional or fictionalised mythological or legendary characters (such as angels and demons). I thought about adding "deity" to the myth/legend list, but the word itself has semantic difficulties (as we're noting in other discussions). It can mean a "god" (a divinely or cosmicly powerful being), or it can mean a worshipped being (or both).

So I didn't include it. Ideas for a word that would more clearly apply, would be welcome. - jc37 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure, the two "superhumans" I mentioned would be okay correct? Their articles source the ability in case you wanted to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it probably depends on the currently ongoing discussions at their talk pages? When they're resolved (and I "think" one at least may be), so too should your questions? - jc37 12:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting that vandalism to my userpage. I shall be sure to return the favour. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball naming conventions

I made the summaries for the Dragon Ball manga in List of Dragon Ball manga volumes, which is divided in both series. Could you pay a look later to see if those names are okay? For example I dont know what is the English name for the palace from Kami or the room where people can train for one day as if it were a year. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good, though I don't see any reference to the names there. Perhaps you were referring to something else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean the sublists List of Dragon Ball chapters (series) and List of Dragon Ball Z chapters.Tintor2 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at those later. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Glanced at them. Near as I can tell, everything's fine. 'Kuririn' should be changed to 'Krillin' and 'kaiohken' needs to be spelled correctly. Just curious, why isn't anything wiki-linked? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of possible spelling mistakes.Tintor2 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulreaper

Dear Sesshomaru,

Thank you for your enthusiasm in undoing my work on this article. After your imperative to 'quit,' I followed your advice and looked (again) at WP:RED--but I didn't see anything there to lead me to believe that, for instance, former band members of a barely noticeable death metal are likely to have articles written about them. I quote: "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." There is very little likelihood that the former guitar player of a Swedish band that broke up four years ago would ever achieve any kind of notability. And look at the article. Two albums and not a single independent, third-party article--it is unlikely that they would survive a round of AfD discussion. How notable would their former members be?

Furthermore, in reverting my edits, you have managed to do the article a disfavor in another way: look at its little table of content. Couple that with its lack of sources, its plethora of red links that will never, ever turn red (and even if they did, those articles they link to wouldn't likely survive AfD discussion), and it's not a very goodlooking article. Better spend your time hunting down sources for this band, in case someone does nominate it for deletion. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you really think that there's no chance that they'll have articles, then I guess the red links could be undone. Why didn't you say that in your edit summary in the first place? I assumed you kept ignoring me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, I guess I could have--but by now I've gone through maybe a hundred of these death bands with tons of red links. I wasn't ignoring you at all, but true, I didn't look at the history in between edits. Still, you can't really throw WP:RED at me in the context of an article like this... I don't always include everything in the summary cause there's often lots to say (I mean, look at this), but I try to be as inclusive as possible. No, I don't think these boys will get articles of their own. Sorry if I missed your edit in between mine. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stan Lee

It should be curbed altogether IMO. Is there a discussion at the comics project about it? Alientraveller (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't see a need for the template. Lee is linked in every template for each franchise he co-created. Alientraveller (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegeta

I'm afraid I don't know how I would properly cite the additions I made to the vegeta article, would a picture or video be a good cite/reference? I mean how do you properly cite a description of someones personality lol --67.91.194.103 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Woman

It seems to be coming from a template listing the episodes. When I saw ":List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1)" I figured it was from a template. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see - it was just a copy from the season 1 list. When I made another edit to the season 1 article the wikilink disappeared from both articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Superman (disambiguation)

That page seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. Many of those items, specifically the "Adventures of Superman" radio and tv shows, clearly do not belong there. They were not known as "Superman". The example you cite does not work, as neither of those are the "primary topic". Superman is the primary topic for this disambiguation page. They need to go.

The "see also" section has grown too big, as well. Most of those topics can be found under Superman in other media, particularly things like Lois & Clark. I'd like you to take a second look at some of those things and really ask yourself if they belong on a disambiguation page, instead of in an article. I can see the argument for including the "Supermen" items, but then they need to go into the page itself. You could change the intro to read "Superman or Supermen may also refer to:" so they fit in. Rhindle The Red (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest another disambiguation at Supermen? The plural brings with it other connotations and it would make sense as a separate disambiguation.

Also perhaps add Superman in other media, which would cover a lot of other Superman franchise material that have "Superman" in the name but wouldn't fall into the remit of a general disambiguation page like this. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough to justify a separate disambiguation on "Supermen". The link you mentioned at MOS:DABINT specifically says that there are two exceptions to the introductory sentence: "Where a word and an abbreviation are disambiguated together" and "Where both singular and plural are disambiguated together". The latter applies here.

Your misinterpreting the meaning of "primary topic". In the example you cite, "School" is the primary topic. Notice that that section does not actually mention the "School (discipline)" link anywhere in the descriptive text. That section is there to illustrate not mixing the primary topic ("School") with the list of entires (which includes School (discipline). MOS:DAB, in the piping and redirects section specifically states that "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." The exception for redirecting does not apply here, as you can see from this sentence: "To be clear, the above example of a redirect is only appropriate because Cell phone is bolded as an alternate title in the lead section of the mobile phone article. If it were not, then the second example could have been used instead." Adventures of Superman (TV series) does not list "Superman" in bold in its entry, because the show was not known as "Superman". Therefore, the redirect is incorrect, even if it *did* belong on this page.

Anyway, my point is that creating redirects like Superman (1952 TV series) purely for the sake of the disambiguation page is misleading. The show is not generally known as "Superman" and should not be on this page at all, no matter what type of link is being used.

Normal sections on a disambiguation page should be as large as necessary, but I just don't want to see the "See also" section get out of hand. It starts to get away from the point of a disambiguation page, which is simply and specifically to help people find the right "Superman". Not Lois & Clark, not The Adventures of Superman. Just "Superman".

Superman in other media *is* on the page. I just didn't notice that it was still listed under its old title Superman in popular culture. Just update that. Rhindle The Red (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your position in leaving one recording artist Wikilinked-in but de-linking all the others. Could you explain in clearer terms? (I'm putting you back on my watchlist for the duration, so you can respond right here.) --Ted Watson (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple. WP:MOS:DP#Individual entries tells us to wiki-link only one relevant term per line. For instance take a look at, say, the items at Iron Man (disambiguation) and Captain Marvel. Notice how there's just one blue link each? Red links are a different case. MOS:DABRL explains that. Hope I answered your concerns. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Another look shows me that the main item on that line, an album title, is not linked. Got it. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

About Bitch (disambiguation)

It was not an editing test. I was just adding a link to the short story Bitch by Roald Dahl, and I overlooked a mistake on the way, and I immediately corrected the mistake. Sorry for creating any misunderstandings. Kahzenu (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, is it wrong to add a link to an article about that short story? Kahzenu (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It isnt vandalism is it? Kahzenu (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're actually supposed to write it in like this:

• "Bitch" (short story), by Roald Dahl

Is that what you've been trying to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

yes. you dont have to bite me. im still new to this editing thing. Kahzenu (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What's a guy supposed to assume? You didn't even leave an edit summary. But don't worry, I don't bite ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it [1]. On another note, you don't give a good impression when you inexplicably remove your talk page warnings. Just letting you know, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

well sorry. i really am. Kahzenu (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks too. :) Kahzenu (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused

I think I've been doing something wrong. If the character/group is soldier-related, what's the appropriate category to be placed: Category:Fictional soldiers or Category:Fictional special forces? I just noticed that Captain America had both, so did many articles I edited. Help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the simplest practice (especially to try to minimise category bloat / overcat), is to only cat in the most specific subcat of Category:Fictional characters by occupation.

Though this can indeed cause certain problems.

For example, should a military General be categorised in every rank below General, since they obviously had them as well? (Especially if this is sourced.) - Obviously not.

Incidentally, this is another reason why these should all be lists. - jc37 09:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I place them in Category:Fictional military personnel, including Cap? Or are you gonna initiate a cfd? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was actually just offering a general suggestion concerning common practice (category diffusion), and leaving it up to your discernment : )

Incidentally, Category:Fictional military personnel, and its subcats, seem rather US-centric. (Which is obviously problematic.) - jc37 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What to do for now? Subcategorize? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AKA: Category diffusion. And yes, that's my suggestion. - jc37 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. BTW, you might wanna consider removing Dumbo (character) from here since he flies primarily through use of a "magic feather". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to check it out to the end. Timothy reveals that it wasn't the feather at all : ) - jc37 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball special

You wrote "Assuming this is true" on the Dragon Ball page. I have watched it and can am 100% sure Trunks and Goten call him that at least twice during their fight. In fact, because the name "Aka" isn`t explicitly used, I first thought the name really was Abocado. A great deal of characters are named after food (like Gohan or Freezer`s special forces, Raditz, etc) or pieces of clothing (Bulma, Trunks) so I don`t think it would be unencyclopaedic to assume the boys were making fun of Aka by calling him avocado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.112.161.38 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's original research and has should not be used on Wikipedia. Moocows rule 01:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

About Rock Lee

"Loopy Fist" is used by VIZ in the English dub of Naruto, therefore it should be "Loopy Fist" not "Drunken Fist", even when "Drunken Fist" is what it's most known by. Moocows rule 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the only victim

...of Wakamusha's insults. I saw the insult this user threw at you here, but look at what this user said to me here. This user knew that I wasn't a bot, and just made that comment to insult me. At first, I wasn't sure if Wakamusha knew, but after seeing that the user has been on Wikipedia for a while, and is familiar with the policies, I knew that user was just trying to test my patience. -- IRP ☎ 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC), modified 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Compliment

Astute and accurate rv at The Shadow. My compliments. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ki/Chi again

Look, I don't understand why the original Japanese convention can't be observed in this case. As I pointed out and made clear that chi is only in the Viz media and not the default term. Both terms must be observed as "ki (chi in Viz adaptation)" in order to be truthful to the reader. Your willing to let other terms for various attacks slide by listing both conventions such as Genki Dama and Shunkan Idō but not this. As you can see the line in the Vegeta article states quote

"Vegeta has the ability to create and enhance attacks with the use of ki (chi in the Viz adaptation)."

That should be sufficient to not just this article but all articles except game articles. Now you will say Viz uses chi in their adaptation so it must be used on Wikipedia. That's fine, but we can't just out right strike ki from the record altogether. Sarujo (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WQA

I have already told both of you to quit it twice, and you two keep going. Hence, I have no choice but to report this to Wikiquette alerts. Please resolve the dispute with a third party at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Lord Sesshomaru and User:New Age Retro Hippie. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll continue it from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

You are welcome, my Lord. ^^ --Da Vynci (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

G6-Tagging

Hi there. If you tag articles for deletion as CSD #G6 and your reasoning is not self-evident (like here, in the future please leave an explanation in the edit summary. Regards SoWhy 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep that in mind ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiss (disambiguation)

Hi. I'm confused by your placement of a "cleanup" template on the page. The page has gone through several cleanups recently, at least one of them by you yourself. As far as I can tell, the page is currently consistent with MOSDAB. What is it that you feel needs cleaning up? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Déjà vu! Well, for starters, I'm seeing one too many blue links there. The introductory line needs to be rectified in accordance with MOS:DABINT. Inclusively, the page could use some re-ordering. Other than that, it's fine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

re: 24.172.64.66

Two options right now:

• Semi-protect the 2 pages. Not really an issue with the Superman P&A, but Wonder Woman has a fair amount of constructive IP traffic.
• See his reaction to the last warning.

I'd prefer not to use the first option at this point.

- J Greb (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cat question

If you effectively have three "versions" of the same character, one video game, one film, and one a novelization of said film, and a category readily applies to the novelization version, should it be added to the article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who have super strength

For starters, to be coherent with Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength, could this be moved to List of fictional characters with superhuman strength? Also, Chuck Norris is not fictional so shouldn't he be taken off this list (even if it is an internet meme)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. (the name was determined by consensus after actually several CfDs.)

The inclusion criteria indicates superhuman strength. Last I knew, Chuck Norris was human : )

And as far as I'm concerned, please feel free to add every (appropriate) member of the cat to the list page (though the comics ones, or at least the DC and Marvel ones may need to be split to their own pages). - jc37 09:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

reliability help

hey sesshomaru. i scanned the page and uploaded it for the reference. how else can i give a more reliable link...that is the only way I can think of showing the source. how can i show the source for the page with the information for the zarbon article without linking to the scanned image? should i link to the anime insider website? please help, as i have been trying to get that info into the section since last september. Zarbon (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

jinx

i do not concur...the list is certainly of sufficient length and variety to warrant sections and is well within mos guidelines. --emerson7 08:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Possible sockpuppetry?

It's possible... it's also possible that David A has hit on the situation. However, somethings just don't quite add up...

JJoseph145's edits cover more than just the IP's favored 2 articles. There'd be a bit more substance if the IP had been doing the same edits across more of 145's larger set. It maybe the same person, but it feels like a leap.

And as for David A's assertion... neither have JJ's taunting, which, again, makes for a bit of a leap.

It maybe a case where an check maybe needed to confirm if 145 and the IP are the same. - J Greb (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Already dropped a checkuser request earlier today on the three. And David A was very quick with tagging the new one as a JJpuppet. - J Greb (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the CU showed NO relationship with JJonz, as the IP was stale. You may wish to adjust your past few edits. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Which edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Transformation jutsu

This is about the list of comic book superpowers. Why not call it shapeshifting? It is after all, a translation. And I think the Naruto Uzumaki#Abilities section needs an update about this jutsu. Shouldn't even call it an update, because he can execute the jutsu beyond perfection long before even the first episode!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunyan (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That last edit was a mistake. Man, how fast these tools can work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunyan (talk • contribs)

Yeah. I don't want to breach any convention upon which the whole article is written. I wanted to revert myself that vandalism edit I made before you beat me to it. But i cant blame you. You are a hell lot more experienced user with the same kinda tools!

I guess you're right. We can't add all the people with all the abilities. The page would be overflowing with Naruto characters! But I think the Naruto article is poorly written. The abilities section definitely needs an expansion, perhaps with subsections for each of his four jutsu. Hell, he has even transformed his clones into different people at the same time as early as the Chunin exams! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunyan (talk • contribs)

Categorization

I see you took off the "mundane" cats from Thor, but how should we go about categorizing his Ultimate version? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My general rule of thumb is to not categorise the ultimate Marvel characters anywhere except as characters published by Marvel, and Category:Ultimate Marvel characters.

And the latter only if they have their own article.

The general goal seems to be to generally not subcategorise "alternate versions" of characters. - jc37 07:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I misunderstood, but am I to assume that everyone in Category:Ultimate Marvel characters should be "cleansed" of every other category? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding, and tends to be the SOP.

Please feel free to check with Doczilla (et al) about it though, if you'd like to make sure I'm not misrepresenting the discussions concerning "alternate versions". (I don't think I am, but another set of knowledgeable eyes if typically welcome : ) - jc37 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball page altered, please keep track.

I recently brought back to order the way the page was initially grafted before TTN decided to merge major characters (Zarbon, Dodoria, Cui, The entire Ginyu Force) into one section without explanation. The next time he decides to merge characters without a proper discussion in the talk page, I will notify almost all other dragonball project people to discuss this. I am bringing this up to you because I just recently went through the trouble of locating information in regards to sourcing something for the Zarbon section and it was annoying to see him try and delete all the information from all of the sections and make one small section called "Frieza Empire"...and try to summarize 60 episodes worth of antagonists into one section. The page itself has a slew of others who are much, and I mean much lesser characters to the extent that they should be merged. Please look to see that TTN does not merge a slew of characters into a single section, especially not those specific characters as they were more than secondary. Zarbon (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aang‎‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baba (honorific). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Forum

Hey I was just wondering how come you deleted the post I put on Bleach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklotus397 (talk • contribs)

what if I was to create a page for just the forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklotus397 (talk • contribs)

Request for clarification

Can you please fill in some gaps in my understanding of your POV?

1) You dont like

• Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem

Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band [[Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem#Zoot|''Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem'']]

because the blue bit suggests it is a link to that page. Have I got that correct?
But, it is a link to that page, isn't it? (Albiet a link to a section on the page, but still a link to that page.)
What am I missing?

2) In this example

• Zoot, a character in the television series The Tribe

Zoot, a [[List of The Tribe characters#Zoot Martin/Daniel James|character]] in the television series ''The Tribe''

it clearly doesn't suggest it's a link to the page; it suggests it's a link to information about the character(s). (Doesn't it?)
What is it you don't like about this?

3) What is your opinion of this example?

• Zoot, a cast member in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Zoot, a [[Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Cast|cast member]] in the film ''Monty Python and the Holy Grail''

In your mind, is it the same as "2", or different? If different, what's the difference?

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Viewers will likely assume that the blue linked term is an article, not a link to a section. They shouldn't be surprised when clicking on it. The third option you gave is no different than the first two. You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding? I think so, and my mentor User:JHunterJ concurs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused by your answer. I asked a number of questions; I'm not sure which answers apply to which questions. Here's what I understand - please correct/clarify/confirm as appropriate.

We have examples:

1) Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem

Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band [[Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem#Zoot|''Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem'']]

2) Zoot, a character in the television series The Tribe

Zoot, a [[List of The Tribe characters#Zoot Martin/Daniel James|character]] in the television series ''The Tribe''

3) Zoot, a cast member in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Zoot, a [[Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Cast|cast member]] in the film ''Monty Python and the Holy Grail''

and questions & answers:

Q i) You dont like example 1) because the blue bit suggests it is a link to that page. Have I got that correct?

Answer: "You are correct. Viewers will likely assume that the blue linked term is an article, not a link to a section. They shouldn't be surprised when clicking on it."

Q ii) But, it is a link to that page, isn't it? (Albiet a link to a section on the page, but still a link to that page.) What am I missing?

Answer: (I couldn't identify an answer to this question.)

Q iii) In example 2, it clearly doesn't suggest it's a link to the page; it suggests it's a link to information about the character(s). (Doesn't it?)

Answer: (Implied answer is "No", but I can't determine why.)

Q iv) What is it you don't like about example 2?

Answer: (I'm not sure of which is your answer. I think it might be the "suprise" element, but I wouldn't have thought that they would expect that the only blue link on the line (a blue link on the word "character") would actually link to the page "character" - having the only blue link point to something that wasn't specifically about the character in question would be pointless. Hence, I'm not sure what your answer to Q iv) is.)

Q v) Is example 2 the same as example 3.

Answer: (my wording) "Yes." (your words) "The third option you gave is no different than the first two."

Comment: Interesting! I think examples 1) and 2) are different. You think they are the same.

Do you understand why I think they are different? (Or do I need to explain further?)

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think they are the same, so, new question

Q vi) Why do you think examples 1) and 2) are the same?

You have asked the question:

Q vii) You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

Do you mean: "Do you think it's mundane and confounding?" ?

If so, to which "it" are you referring?

If not, I don't understand the question.

"I think so" - I assume you mean "I think it is mundane and comfounding."?

Again, which "it" are you referring to?

"and my mentor concurs" - With what does you mentor concur?

I'm looking forward to you "disambiguating" this for me. (OK, very bad joke - it is getting quite late here ... )

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

short (I hope) wikibreak

Sorry for the delay in replying. Non-wiki-life is occupying me almost full-time at the moment; it may be a few more days before I reply.
My apologies, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

back on deck

Yes, I do indeed seem to have been distracted as well as absent.
Australia last awarded a Victoria Cross 40 years ago (to Keith Payne). In 1991, the Victoria Cross for Australia was created, and last week, it was awarded for the first time (to Mark Donaldson). In addition, we have been enjoying the 2009 Tour Down Under. To top it off, the weather has been delightful!

1) So, lets check if I understand your POV:

a) You don't like

• Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem

Zoot, a member of the fictional muppet band [[Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem#Zoot|''Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem'']]

because the blue bit suggests it is a link to the page Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem, not a link to Zoot.

b) You don't like

• Zoot, a character in the television series The Tribe

Zoot, a [[List of The Tribe characters#Zoot Martin/Daniel James|character]] in the television series ''The Tribe''

because the blue bit suggests it is a link to the page character, not a link to Zoot.

c) You don't like

• Zoot, a cast member in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Zoot, a [[Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Cast|cast member]] in the film ''Monty Python and the Holy Grail''

because the blue bit suggests it is a link to the page cast member, not a link to Zoot.

Q1: Is this understanding of your POV correct: Answer: Yes/No

2) You think examples a), b) and c) are all the same

Q2: Is this understanding of your POV correct: Answer: Yes/No

3) You have asked the question: "You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding?"

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Q3:Could you reword the question please, without using the word "it"? Answer: Yes / No

If the answer to Q3 is "Yes", then:

Please reword the question, without using the word "it".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Got to go to work now; will respond tonight. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aang and Katara

I noticed that you are removing the kiss material from the Aang page. I don't think it should be mentioned either. There is an ongoing discussion about this (again) on Katara's talk page. I recently had to withdraw from it because I returned to school and can't spare the time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranma articles

The following articles have been suggested for deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Ranma ½ characters (manga)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Ranma ½ characters (anime)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ranma ½ minor characters Dave (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, but I don't watch those pages so I really don't have anything I want to convey. Whatever happens is for the best ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

resp

I think I fixed it, please confirm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We Gotta Power

I happened upon a page from that show that the single charted on Oricon. Would that help get it's article back? Sarujo (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there was a previous agreement to redirect it, I believe you would be better off letting the community know first. Perhaps initiating a discussion at WT:WPDBZ is the best way to go at it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Joker

Hello. You've reverted by two edits relating to The Joker's metatextual awareness and characterisation in live film. You said it was uncited. I didn't include a reference for the hidden comment on the website because I thought most people knew about it and that someone else would cite it if they felt it was necessary. I have a source for it here http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=20544. I'm not sure why you removed the information I added about the Joker's modus operandi? This has been a staple of the character since his very first appearance and The Dark Knight adapted it differently. I found that as relevant as the reason for the characters' disfigurement. So if possible I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks A gx7 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jidaigeki

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit. There were already three references in the article referencing George Lucas naming the Jedi after Jidaigeki films. No hard feelings, just wanted to let you know what was going on. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I adjusted a few things [2]. Guess it's the description that wasn't needed (the other entries in the see also section didn't have one). Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reflist

Hi, I had a question about your removal of that trivia section per the reason you gave (there weren't enough references there per WP:FN#Resizing references). I've seen plenty of articles with one reference. That section you gave seemed to be more of a font size thing. I won't touch it, but I wanted to discuss this with you. Those sources seemed perfectly fine, maybe we can put them in somewhere else in the article. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guideline clarifies that <references/> becomes {{Reflist}} once there is at least ten. Seems many people don't know about it. That answer your question? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Crystal (disambiguation)

Let's have a look at the dictionary definition of "crystal". The primary meaning is, naturally, crystal. Other meanings of the word include a) a form of quartz (rock crystal) and b) a kind of glass (crystal glass, e.g. lead crystal). CRYSTAL? Never heard of the program, but it has to be included somwhere in the article; I don't care too much whether it should be at the top or in the appropriate section (though I would have preferred the latter). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if this was re-discussed on the talk page before any changes are to be made. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Have you checked my talk page? Sarujo (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've had you on my watchlist for a while. I didn't leave a response because I don't have anything more to say. And I did read the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga in case you wanted to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: HP (disambig)

You sure? The name of the article is horsepower, not hp; "hp" is a redirect. Elm-39 - T/C 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is not a list of laws set in stone, it's a guideline. I understand that your idea would work fine with things such as capitalization or different wording, but considering these are initials and acronyms we're talking about (lots of different terms for pretty much anything), wouldn't it make more sense to just link to the regular article? Personally, I would like to have this specific matter addressed if it's such a big deal.

Anyway, I may as well quit and edit things that really don't belong; an IATA code that doesn't even remotely share the same letters as what it stands for? Do note that the code isn't even mentioned in the article! Elm-39 - T/C 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Edit: Apparently it IS on the article. It completely went right over my head, right past my eyes. Sorry about that, really. Elm-39 - T/C 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I had posted on the talk page. Elm-39 - T/C 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)