Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a request at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga to have the checklist either show always or at least also show for C class so people can see the list without having to mark is as B and causing it to show up in the list of articles needing their classes fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, sound's like the best solution. It's always good to see, what still has to be done. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not make a mistake. The entire paragraph is now sourced by the ANN article, which states what I put there, that both one-shots ran in the special summer issue. I also left a note on the talk page about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would be good if every pirate crew mentioned in One Piece is gathered on one page, List of One Piece Pirate Crews. The page is already created and you have made contributions in it.

Therefore, I wanted to ask whether every seperate One Piece pirate crew page like Red Haired Pirate Crew should be merged within the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. - Krupted Soul (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you might not have noticed, that merging character and crew/oranizations has been discussed on Talk: List of One Piece characters, just that nobody started doing anything afterwards... Most of the One Piece articles are in a state of total chaos, containing plot information, character lists and various other information, with no apparent structure, when compared among each other.

About List of One Piece Pirate Crews, that article as it is now, with this weird table format is in no shape to be merged into. If you want to pursue your suggestion, I'd advise to start by to moving everything (or everything that can be moved somewhere else) out of that page first. And then start it over.

As to if "every" crew should be merged there, I'd have to say, maybe not. But I don't think anyone would disagree, if the 90% less important crews would be merged/mentioned there. All in all, it's a good idea, that's gonna be a lot of work. Go ahead and try! Nothing can't be undone, so you can't break anything. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totaly right about the tables in the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. In my opinion, the reason for one piece articles being in a state of chaos is mainly because they are copied from the website One Piece Wikia. I will start editing the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews but it will take a long time. Take care! - Krupted Soul (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask, should I start editing the topic List of One Piece Pirate Crews? I am not sure if the topic will remain or might be merged into other topics. - Krupted Soul (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows what will happen to the articles, nobody owns them, we just do what we think is best. You really need not be concerend about what will happen later. Even if pages are merged, the conents (and therefore the edits done on them) won't be lost. But most of all, you don't need to ask anybody before you edit an article. Wikipedia works the exact opposite way around: You do what you think is best and if anyone disagrees (s)he can can undo it afterwards. Just go ahead! :) -- Goodraise (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) - Krupted Soul (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This editor is reverting many good faith edits for unexplained reasons. Have you noticed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. But I don't quite know what to do. I talked with him first here and then here. But that didn't lead anywhere. He isn't argueing, just stating that he disagrees, and reverting my edits. What should I do? -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just revert him on those pages. I'll watchlist them to see if he'll do it again. If he breaks WP:3RR, I'll file a report. Sound good? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, though he already broke that one on both of the pages in question: Baroque Works and The Three Great Powers. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll put in a full protection request. First, where did the consensus take place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit complicated... Most recently here: Talk:List of One Piece characters#Star Merge - Episode IV: A New Hope as well as a number of previous topics on the same talk page, including the archive (a lot to read), and partly here: Talk:One Piece#Cursed/Devil Fruits about the creation of World of One Piece. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed my vote in [1]. The articles have been added to my watchlist. Now Gune (talk · contribs) has been warned. Let's see if he tries it again. It'll be simpler requesting a block if it continues. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any real objection to switching all of the Japanese terms to their English counterparts (i.e Shichibukai --> Seven Warlords of the Sea or whatever)? The terms in this site's articles really should make sense to the casual reader, while things like that really just appeal to the hardcore fan. TTN (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection, no, not really. I only see a difficulty there. The One Piece manga has an official translation, as well as the anime, which actually has three, which all seem seldom to agree on a term. Then there's the issue, that the manga is still ongoing and these pages are kept up to speed with the chapters released in Japan, hence causing things to be mentioned, which don't yet have an official translation. As far as I am concerned, I don't care wether it's "Seven Warlords of the Sea", "Seven Armed Seas", "Shichibukai" or whatever. But I also don't think that a casual reader will get a better understanding, from "Seven Warlords of the Sea" than from "Shichibukai", as the terms both aren't very descriptive and I dare say even missleading. (I don't know, if I have to elaborate this, as I don't know how deep, if at all, you are into the story.) Personally, I think it's best to use the romanized terms and explaining what they are, as the "official" terms are only known to those reading the manga or watching the show anyways, putting them more in the corner of fans and less in that of the real casual reader.

If you're asking wether I'd oppose a switch, then the answer is "no". But I wouldn't back it up either. It would probably only cause more chaos than there is already in the One Piece articles. (Not to mention all the links and redirects...) -- Goodraise (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

With a series like this, I guess you can only go so far with helping the reader. In the very least, "Seven Warlords" conveys that they are seven strong guys without having to follow a separate link. Even if it'll be awkward, it's something that needs to be done eventually. The anime project recently backed the same kind of thing with Dragon Ball series, with the English anime names and terms taking precedent. Whatever can be considered the most popular is what would we would use (though that may entail changing Zoro to Zolo, ect). Japanese terms will probably just use the best possible English translation (unless you can find anything specific about it). I'll definitely wait to do anything major after the pages are settled. TTN (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are FOUR english translations! ODEX, VIZ, 4Kids and FUNIMATION! Use the universal Japanese names for the sake of the arguments involving those four DIFFERENT translations being questioned. 92.232.91.192 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The animanga MoS is pretty clear on this, official translations from the media which contributed most to the series' popularity are to be used ("If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world."). —Dinoguy1000 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"I don't know what you're implying here, but being the one who did most (step forward if you disagree) of that cleanup, and also being the one who suggested putting this article up for deletion, instead of simply truning the page into a redirect, without saving anything of it's conent, I'd like to point out, that I consider this AfD to be part of that cleanup process."

I wasn't trying to imply anything, really. Because TTN (talk · contribs) had also nominated a large number of other articles for deletion over just a couple of days' time, I had assumed (I've got to stop doing that... *knuckles head*) that he nominated this list just to get rid of it (not that I'm saying it didn't need gotten rid of, of course), and that he was unaware of the previous cleanup push. That being said, I am unaware of any of the details of this cleanup myself, as I have unwatchlisted a number of high-traffic articles since I started working, and never watched the One Piece-related articles particularly closely anyways. The only reason I even knew of the cleanup is because I kept {{One Piece}} on my watchlist, and have seen articles being removed from the template one by one. —Dinoguy1000 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

...for removing my double post on Talk:List of One Piece episodes. I'm sorry if a Wikimedia server error (which I encountered yesterday morning) unexpectedly caused this to happen. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 11:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

hey don't worry about it i wasn't really offended. if i find some useful information i'll let you know.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

on the in-universe, out-universe why does it matter which it is? wouldnt an in-universe grouping of characters give the reader more knowledge and be easier to read and understand for readers for example haveing the groups say, the supernovas, watergate7 carpentors, shandrona warriors, for examples that would be around 20 characters and be much more infomation on what groups the characters and less info on the invidual, this would make it easier to understand whose who, be able to find and link infomation much better, also work better with characters that would need an explantion of but not there own section.

Hi. I think you'll find answers to all of these questions here. If not, please ask there, as to keep discussion of that topic in one place. Aside from that: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ and consider creating a user account. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

this isant speffic to that article i referring it to minor characters the characters in the place you referred are different from the minor characters they can be group or separeted becuase of amount of info and importance to story however most minor characters dont have the importance or the info its best to group them to increase the importance for example ill use the 11 supernovas because its easy they only reason im seeing that the 9 supernovas are still on that list is because people see them cooler than other characters. all of them ecept maybe kidd should be deleted. but when grouped into the 11 supernovas, the 11 supernovas combined make a section that hold more importance that works better for the invidual characters and the whole of the article, i have/had called agentheartlesspain or something like that forgot what it was 24.152.140.190 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I left this unanswered for so long. I've seen it, decided to answer it later, and forgotten about it. Really sorry.

Well, we are currently discussing the future of List of minor One Piece characters over here. I think it's best to wait with this issue until that is discussion is over. Feel free to join in. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason you feel the need to be repeatedly abusive about how stupid you think my ideas are? Once is enough. Several times saying the same thing without adding anything useful is over the line. arimareiji (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't abusive, not even once. I don't think your ideas are stupid. I think they add nothing but instruction creep to a system that is working perfectly fine. Elaborating on an earlier post because one thinks its meaning had not been made clear enough should be perfectly acceptable. My comments my not have added anything useful to your proposal but from a project perspective it is useful to point out when a discussion is a wasted effort. - I contribute to whatever discussion I want and as much as I want. And I will do so as long as I think that my comments are in the least bit helpful. If you can't handle being opposed, then Wikipedia might not be the right place for you. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's useful to repeatedly add derogatory comments afer you've already made it clear that you think something isn't worth discussing? We have very different opinions of what is "useful," and what is "shouting down." arimareiji (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We clearly have different opinions on what is "derogatory", "useful", and "shouting down". But as I pointed out already, on Wikipedia, you'll have to live with people disagreeing with you. You'll even have to live with people saying things several times, as that is apparently what you need. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not so thin-skinned as to obligingly leave - I'll leave it at that. (Yes, you have suggested it twice.) arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just reported Gune to the admins for his edit warring. I'm sick of this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The summaries were fixed. Could have a look there to see if it is now better?Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First off: I didn't read all summaries, only the first few, the last few, and one or two in the middle. The later summaries look fine. And as far as I can tell, the earlier summaries have improved as well. The second one, however, remains a bit confusing. Also: "As Iemitsu goes to Italy after the Varia leader, Xanxus, hints that something happened to the ninth boss, the fight between Yamamoto and Superbia Squalo the swordsman who attacked some time ago, starts at an underground level of the school." doesn't make too much sense to me. - All in all, the prose has improved, but it's not yet brilliant. - Drop me a line if you want more feedback. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which summaries do you mean when you said the "second one, however, remains a bit confusing"?Tintor2 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant the summary of volume 2. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, could you later check Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach chapters/archive1 and add your comments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been working in also in List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters and it has recently been copy-edited. Could you have a little look? I think the lead needs some fixes, but I dont what.Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Went over it. You might want to move the part about Viz' edits to the main page under "Development" or something. Same goes for all those international releases. This is the English Wikipedia. Mention it in the main article. Also consult our other featured chapter lists. What isn't in the lead of any of those, probably doesn't belong in the lead of that list either. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I rewrote the lead a bit. The use of other countries are also used in a few FL. I trimmed it a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A little question goodraise, why cant the one piece episode list be splitted? Is due to some changes in the English version?Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't split it along English seasons, because lack of information. We kind of agreed to split along the Japanese seasons, but waited with the actual split to give time for more participation in the discussion. Well, it's on my TODO list, for when I start more active editing again. (The details are all on the talk page, but it's quite much to read...) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Manga and Anime BarnLoli Award
		Man, you just get loads of loads of work done, and you certainly don't have enough barnstars. Thanks for the assessments! DARTH PANDAduel 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodraise, I'd appreciate it if you stopped editing the details of Dead End Adventure that I've had to resubmit three times now-- your excuse of "reverting multi-edit vandalism and excessive plot details" and "pointless plot details" just doesn't fly with me. Have you looked at the information regarding the other movies? Movie 4 was given the shortest of synopsis out of all of them, and my edit was a concise description of the plot and subplots of the film-- while I concede that it is a 'multi-edit' matter, it's neither vandalism nor excessive. So please, stop reverting my edits.

Also, in case you have any doubt that any of the characters I listed in the subplot (Biera, Anaguma, Shuraiya Bascùd) actually are a part of the Dead End Adventure, I suggest you take a look at [2]. Thank you. Klayr (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

I didn't use the term "multi-edit vandalism" to refer to your addition, but to actual vandalism, I happend to revert with the same edit. Your edit also wasn't a "concise description of the plot" but an expansion of a more concise description of the plot. Wikipedia is not a plot summary site. The summary of Dead End Adventure isn't too short, the other movie summaries are simply too long. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it was a part of mine, apologies on that. If you're going to say that the rest are too long, you should edit them, too, and not just Dead End Adventure's-- I think you need to take into consideration the fact that a big part of One Piece is the minor characters, and if you're going to include ONLY what the Strawhats do in the films, it's doing a great disservice to the rest of the characters. I hope you're going to leave my edit alone now, because there is no reason to revert it back to what you had up. Klayr (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

Actually, there was a reason to revert it back to what I had up. But never mind that. This discussion made me think and subsequently create List of One Piece movies. Within that page, I can live with the length of the summaries. Hope you agree. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That'll do. Klayr (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr

I noticed your recent assessment of New Cutie Honey. I've edited it a bit since then, and if you have any thoughts to share about the article's condition or how I can improve it to, e.g., a good article, I've now listed it for peer review. Thanks, --an odd name 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

umm the user known "Geg" is doing the Sake vs. Booze again. and I just thought you should know about it. =^-^=; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I'm neutral on the issue and you should seek to talk to him, instead revert warring. Regards, -- Goodraise (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, but shouldn't you, when assessing the articles (specifically Memories Off as a C-class, also fill out the B-class review? I know when I did it I always fill it out. -- クラウド６６８ 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the instructions say "Please set add and set these parameters for all C-class and B-class articles." That kind of surprises me. It's a lot more work and in most cases does little good. Whatever, I guess I'll go fix the mess I created... xD -- Goodraise (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry too much about going back to articles you already covered. i will follow uncompleted checklists up (they are all properly categorised, which makes it easier once everything else is done). And thank you very much for the help. Due to my internet connection I will only be able to start major editing next week - sorry if I cannot help assessing at the moment. Regards, G.A.S^talk 07:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bitch, but since it's in the instructions I went with it, lol. -- クラウド６６８ 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fanfic character -- especially with that parentage. In any case, she doesn't appear in any cast list, which is enough to delete her as arrant nonsense. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you were good enough to come through and assess the article, I was wondering if you could come back and expound a little bit on what you see as missing, that you rated B2 as N? Just looking for a little outside guidance. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article seemed rather complete to me. I only rated B2 as failed, because three sections are tagged for expansion. Though the chapter list probably uses the wrong template. It probably should use {{Inc-up}}. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Huh -- it used to be {{inc-up}}, but someone came through and changed it a few months ago.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And ... with a little more work (which was already in progress) the only section marked for real expansion is the Production. So that (and the continuing reference improvements for the media sections) looks what we need to focus on next. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kraftos has done the first 50 on section 38, but as it is listed as Doing on the second 50 and he hasn't said which, I'm not sure which ones he's done.じんない 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did 30 on G.A.S.'s last range before I realized he had reserved them.じんない 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tally updated. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the irony is i figured that out just before I reached the 800 mark. :pじんない 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tallied it again. Now it's 800. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are that close that your dividing up the ranges? I'd like to finish this last range if possible. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you say that in more words? -- Goodraise (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you guys just chopped up the last range I was working on and finished it. Would have been nice to have some warning, I was around and could have quickly finished it up... Oh well. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Jinnai and I seem to have gotten in an assessment rage and finished the remaining ~350 articles in ~2 hours. Again, sorry. :\ -- Goodraise (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

		Anime and manga service award
		By order of the Coordinators of the Anime and manga Tag and Assess—for your outstanding work in Tag & Assess 2008—I award you this Silver Wiki. You are an example to us all. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		BarnSakura
		For tagging and assessing over 1,000 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this BarnSakura. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		Working Man's Barnstar
		For tagging and assessing 800 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

		Anime and manga service award
		For tagging and assessing 600 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As always, keep up the good work:) and furthermore...

		Barnloli
		For tagging and assessing hundreds of articles not included in Tag & Assess 2008, I further present you with this Anime and manga BarnLoli. Thanks for the help. —G.A.Stalk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your quick assessment of List of Speed Grapher characters! I had a question for you... I was basing my list off of List of Naruto characters, which did not exhibit anything I can identify as a nav template. At the risk of sounding stupid, what is a nav template? If you mean the template at the bottom, Speed Grapher doesn't have enough articles to justify one, unfortunately. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's a nav template. If there's not enough articles for that, a "See also" section, containing items such as chapter and episode lists, will also do. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The main article contains only a plot section and an episode list. In that case: never mind. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh... In addition to that, Merchandise for Speed Grapher doesn't exist (at all) and there is no information about Creation and Conception on the internet. Since the Naruto list's lead seemed to be based on Creation and Conception, I do not believe I can lengthen the lead at this time... Ah, it's too bad that I'll have to settle for C-Class. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if all that stuff doesn't exist, it will be hard - if not impossible - to reach FL status. I'd even question the appropriateness of the spin-out. The main article doesn't scream "I am so notable, create spin-outs of me!" either. (Sorry to be the bearer of such grim news. :\ ) -- Goodraise (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely not going for a FL with this one. However, I feel a spin-out is appropriate due to the extreme length of both the episode list and the character list (I will be working on moving the episode list out next) and the resultant size of the main article. Hopefully, I'll get the main article fixed up a bit so that it looks appropriate. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode and chapter lists are about real items. Character lists aren't. They can't expect the same acceptance. Mind WP:PLOT. - But whatever, just saying. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. If this gets AfD'd, I'll argue my case, but I don't think there should be any large issues for now. Again, thanks for your help! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You said in one of the Afd's that you have read the manga several times, and obviously you have a good knowledge of what makes a good wiki page. Have you considered starting List of Ranma ½ characters yourself? I have only watched the anime, and with so many characters that either have smaller, or simply non existant parts in the anime I don't feel qualified to do it myself (theres also the issue of the quality of my writing...). Even if it was just one paragraph per each of the more notable characters, it would be a good way to start the process of merging the seeprate articles over time into the list. Theres no rush of course, but you do seem qualified! I can help with merging and watching the page if it's any help. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehh? You've read the manga several times, Goodraise? Can I take that to mean you own the series, and in that case, would you be willing to help with the creation of a chapter list? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't have a particular interest in editing Ranma ½ articles, but if there's no one else going to, I might as well just do it (creating a basic character list). As for the chapter list, with that I have the same problem I have with One Piece: I don't have any of the volumes in English (or Japanese for that matter). Therefore I don't know of how much help I can be. The best I might come up with are fan translated chapter titles. I also read somewhere, that the English release uses a different volume size (and possibly chapter order). -- Goodraise (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the english volumes are bigger I believe Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, don't worry about the chapter list, then, I was only going to ask your help if you actually owned volumes from the series. As Dandy said, the English volumes are slightly larger (I guess, I'm unable to compare any English volumes with their Japanese counterparts), since Viz compressed the series from its original 38-volume length down to 36 volumes (in both editions, much less =P ). As I've stated several times before, this is the main reason I haven't just gone ahead and created a chapter list. Maybe User:Doceirias can either get ahold of the Japanese volumes or can point me to someone else who can, though... I haven't tried asking him yet. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The ever useful Furinkan.com has chapter names for the japanese volumes here. Also, as Furinkan is considered RS, it's useful for referencing it too :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EH?!! How come I've never been pointed there before (or inadvertently stumbled across it myself)? That helps immensely! ^_^ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't spot it when I asked if it was considered RS a few months back then? Pretty much the first place to go for any Rumiko Takahashi related info, and it's used in some form (either as refs or links) on most pages relating to her works Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? You're right, I never really paid attention to it before, mostly because I didn't know anything about it (and certainly not that it held such a gold mine of information!). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy cleanup on my merge :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was better to do it right away, before it piles up. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I'm just not very good at it :p I've added the article to the template too. Once the separate articles get reduced, I'll merge the episode list template into the character one. No idea why there are two templates when it could easily be done in one - the character tenplate isn't even named as such, it's just "ranma-navigation" Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets just say I had a bit of practice, when I turned this into that. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, not exactly one of the easier series to do so with :p Thats all I was planning to bold merge (only 5vols into the manga), so you're free for the rest of the day if you want :D Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the heading formatting, I thought I had found an error. I had to get the two revisions side by side to realize what I had done. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's an understandable error; the jump from == to ==== is a bit weird after all. But the overall look of the list is just better with smaller sub-section names. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot about that prediction; good call! I'm so glad we have those archived merge discussions to back us up! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

About the assessment of the article, first thanks for keeping me honest. I got a little too excited about the article's progress and got a little carried away, overlooking some glaring errors. You assessed the article as failing the grammar/style (B4) criterion, was that because of the copyedit banner on the page or because you noticed errors on the page? Because since I put the tag up in December, I think the bad grammar has been done away with. Anyway, I just wanted to know what I need fix on the page and what you might have seen that I'm not seeing. Thanks! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I took into consideration the copy-edit tag at the top, the fact that b4 was previously marked as failed, and also read a few random samples of the article. One of those samples, I'd have to read the whole list to find it again, was of really poor quality. The other samples however where acceptable. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After doing some translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article, I'm pretty sure a lot of the original content came from there. The grammar mistakes that I've seen have had a familiar Spanish syntax. Anyway, I don't want to rope you into working on the article, but if you see anything really bad please let me know. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would preferred to have some more discussion before an assessment was made on that article due to the ramifications of an article like that being under the WP:ANIME scope.じんない 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get someone else, to answer it, because it does need serious discussion. If our scope is all manga, then it vastly broadens our scope to include a decent number more articles for both the scrolls, prints as well as people. All of those need to then be assessed to the importance and it would almost require a seperate section to deal with them because it's hard to argue that anyone that is remembered this far into the future that they would not deserve a lowest a high priority, and msot of them top using the current inclusion criteria for indivisuals associated with the project's scope. Moreover all of them could be argued to have high level of importance as well given the "impact" it's had on manga, and in some cases, the rest of the art world.じんない 11:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I monitor WT:ANIME. I noticed the discussion you started there. But I didn't reply, because I don't care. (Did that sound rude? Gotta be careful, many wikipedians are so thin-skinned...) I'm simply not interested in defining the scope of WP:ANIME. What I care about is keeping the todo lists of WP:ANIME/ASSESS empty. If something shows up there, I'll assess it. If people later decide, that it's not part of the scope, then that fine with me. As for the importance scale, it currently does cover those articles: manga (equivalent to anime, which is given as example for: top), history of manga (spinout of manga and equivalent to history of anime, which is given as example for: high), history of manga before World War II (possible spinout of history of manga: mid), Chōjū-giga (possible spinout of history of manga before World War II: low). Anyways, please don't drag me into this discussion. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't care if you get in the discussion. I just didn't want you, or anyone, assessing it because it hadn't been seriously discussed. By assessing it, you create a standard, whether you want to believe it or not -- actions speak. The problem with history of manga, which you point to does not deal with stuff so old. Either that article needs updating, or the scope needs refining, or both. Assessing without context just because it appears is bad form, especially when another member has questioned the validity of the article being under the scope.じんない 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the purpose of this discussion. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)