User talk:Quasirandom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use rationales

Well, you could always put it up for a fair use review if you're unsure... A longish caption in the article would be good, and for the character pictures, you could say that it's the primary form of visual identification of this character. Thanks for reminding me, and I hope this helps.-Malkinann 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be fine if you removed it yourself, as you've added the rationale. -Malkinann 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adachi articles

I finished up work on Hiatari Ryōkō! for now, so feel free to go over the article like you are the others. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list. Cross Game should be next. —Quasirandom 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jinbē is done for now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Thanks for your work on getting Azumanga to GA. This wasn't an easy one.--SidiLemine 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. There's still more to do, enough so I'm actually slightly conflicted about the GA. The character articles need some serious work still, which I started but haven't taken very far. —Quasirandom 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language icons

Where in WP:MOS-L does it specify an exact location for language icons? The only thing I can find is that they should be included. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In WP:MOS-L#non-English-language_sites, last paragraph: "You can also indicate the language by putting a language icon after the link." (emphasis added) Startled me too, when I saw that -- I suspect it's not a well-known guideline, as I see it in front at least as often. Fortunately, the cite web template has a language argument that automates that part. —Quasirandom 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that it's a guideline, meaning it can be ignored if the person editing thinks things are better the other way. I always put the icon in front because then people can actually notice it. Otherwise it gets lost in the text (since it looks like text). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using DEFAULTSORT

When using {{DEFAULTSORT}} on categories it should be used as a magic word. The correct syntax is {{DEFAULTSORT:sortkey}}. See also, Help:Categories#Default sort key. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. --Scottmsg 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry 'bout that. I was copying prior uses, without checking the tempalte doc. I'll go back and check my edits for the past day. —Quasirandom 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I have completely lost the discussion for this, but I don't think we need more than one category for either award. No need to divide by demographics. Doceirias 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently applying categories that already existed, except for one I created to complete the set. If you want to start discussion about merging, I'm game, though I note that the awards themselves distinguish by demographic. —Quasirandom 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yotsuba&!: potential for FA?

I've responded here.--Nohansen 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing

Thanks for fixing my over-revert on Fruits Basket. I didn't realize I had clicked as far back as I had. -DrGeoduck 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I didn't notice myself for a while -- there was a bunch of rvs required in there. —Quasirandom 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yotsuba Koiwai

I have found and added the reference of Yotsuba Koiwai appearing in MapleStory OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you muchly. —Quasirandom 03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Yotsuba episode?

Hey, do you know when there will be new Yotsuba episodes? It's been ages since the last one on the farm. HertzaHaeon 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Azuma skipped the comes-out-in-August issue of Dengeki Daioh (possibly for preparing volume 7 for publication?), so I'm expecting a new chapter in the next, which should be in a week or so. —Quasirandom 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that. Thanks for the info. HertzaHaeon 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Small Project: Comments

I just wanted to let you know that I made some comments about your "small project" on manga and anime project talk page.

You know, I hope, that some other editors and I are doing a major revision of the manga entry? Some of revised material is now up, and we've been putting comments and invitations to join us on the manga talk page and on manga and anime project page. I just want to repeat the invitation more personally -- if you'd like to help, you'd be most welcome!

Timothy Perper 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I haven't commented on the revisions because I've not enough knowledge to do so. Though when you get things together, if you want a copyeditor to go through it, feel free to tap me. —Quasirandom 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Datefixes

Thank you for fixing the dates in the templates at Melody Yoko.

I would like to point out, by the way, that they were all correct when they were added: somebody messed with them in the edit immediately before yours. (It is, I realise, petty of me to need to make that clear; but there it is.) --Paul A 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So they had -- I should have checked the history. It looked like a careless copy-n-paste on the surface. —Quasirandom 03:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you the Working Man's Barnstar (equivalent to the Deletion Sorting Order of Heroic Labour) for sorting lots of fictional characters nominated for Deletion.--Gavin Collins 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankee. I think. —Quasirandom 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonfree images in lists

Actual practice, as well as the clear requirement that use of nonfree images must not be decorative, and the general requirement that use be minimal. Dozens of such images does not by any criterion fit "minimal". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so not codified per se -- and debatable when they are specifically illustrating examples from the list (such as a list of characters in a visual work). Gotcha. —Quasirandom 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Yotsuba chapters

No problem. After the recent fixes, I feel it's ready for a nomination at WP:FLC. Any problems brought up during the nomination should be able to be addressed with minimal fuss. Best of luck. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yotsuba&!

Please take note of this. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This debate has been included in...

Hi there. I'd just like to suggest something; I noticed you dropping notes in AfDs about a list about fictional character deletions (like you did here). If I may propose; instead of putting them in the middle of the AFD, why not just put them under the nom? You don't have to, I just think it would be more logical. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm -- a thought. I've been following the practice as I saw (and have seen since) when I started doing deletion sorting. Putting things out of order, despite the timestamps, strikes me as a bit dangerous in a venue where refactoring is strongly discouraged. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that generally applies only to comments, however. You're not saying anything that may sway someone's opinion; you're just notifying people of another page that also deals with the subject matter. I think it's highly unlikely that listing that there after people have commented will make them change their minds. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PR and featured nominations

Typically, you should close any peer review an article has before nominating it for featured status, as naturally, the two are redundant, and you should be more concerned about the featured content nomination rather than the peer review in any case. As such, closing the peer review for List of Yotsuba&! chapters is more or less necessary at the moment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Hadn't noticed that requirement. Done, and thanks for the tip. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Yotsuba&! chapters

One sentence, one line, same difference. The point is that WP:GA, or WP:FA articles are not supposed to have tiny paragraphs. I've gotten this lecture many times when I've tried to push GA articles, and I've seen it come up a lot in the many FLCs I was involved with earlier this year. Think of it in terms of readability. If we made a new paragraph whenever a new idea came up, prose would be slipt up too much and will make readibility harder.--十八 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed Watanabe reference in manga article

Thanks for catching this. The reference is to a book, with an auxiliary link to a website. If you like, I can send you the material about Watanabe, since it took me a while to order the book. It looks like I'm going to have to go through all the references correcting mistakes that were introduced when some helpful person "fixed" all references. It's a mess and I apologize. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Got your message on my talk page. Yes, we're going to fix the manga page, all right (he says with gritted teeth). The changes in the references are particularly annoying since we put a lot of work into them getting them right and it's going to be a lot of work getting them right again. If I can email you, I can send the Watanabe material as some kind of attachment. Not a big deal. I'm looking forward to seeing the Watanabe article! Timothy Perper (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find your email address when I click the email link over there <--- way to the left. But you can email me via my user page (I jiust checked and there's an email form on the page). When I get it, I'll send you the page on Watanabe from the Toku book. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. And thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD J-Urban

Thanks for fixing the AfD listing I attempted on the deletion project page. Xymmax (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTD

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, this is your first one. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New articles/stubs for manga artists?

Are you willing to help create some new stub/articles for a few manga artists? (We're getting rid of redlinks in the article.) The artists are listed on the Manga talk page in the "Peer review over?" section way at the bottom -- about 7-8 of them. User:Nihonjoe has been making some new entries and he asked if anyone was willing to help out, so I thought of you. Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it, if you don't mind slow. I've been on a program to de-relink the mangakas on the Kodansha Manga Award and Shogakukan Manga Award articles -- a few more wouldn't hurt. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA criteria for manga article

Over on the manga talk page, Nihonjoe asked if the manga article now meets the FA criteria. I expressed a few opinions and recommended getting more input. Can you comment about this? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll read it through tonight, when I can think it through in detail. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Oneesama

I have nominated the article in question for deletion, and have tried to address your concern in my rationale on the deletion discussion page. You are, of course, more than welcome to participate in the discussion. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your bumper-sticker

This [2] made me laugh out loud at work. :-D I hope others appreciated it as much as I did. MKoltnow 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service. :-) —Quasirandom (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kodomo anime and manga

I don't mind working on a translation, but the Japanese article is marked for lack of sources and original research, and as I said, I don't think these issues are easy to resolve. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be true -- since I can't read Japanese, I can't tell. But I'm having trouble believing the subject isn't notable, given the two most prestigious manga awards have kodomo manga categories. I'll tag the article as needing expert attention and notify the animanga Wikiproject as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You can try making a request at chatsubo. They might give you something there, but I'm finding it unlikely. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the category be renamed as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. As the article points out, in English it's usually shortened to just "kodomo," which suggests that it's currently the right name, but I'm hardly an authority. This would be a good question to ask in WT:ANIME. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, why not just go for a {{cfr}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To find out if it's a good idea first? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, would you do the honours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion in WT:ANIME, and we'll see how it goes from there. —Quasirandom (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Lost Canvas

Hello, I am Tintor2 and I normally work in Saint Seiya The Lost Canvas. About the manga I had no idea how to make that, so thanks. If you have any advice, please tell me.Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly new template, so no worries. I've been applying it to manga articles as I come across them. Pretty much, for a new volume, you can follow the examples of the previous volumes. If the series ever gets licensed in another language, you can expand it to a five-column format to accomodate the additional publication info -- check the documentation on the template page ({{Graphic novel list}}) for details. Otherwise, looks like you're doing okay. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] minor characters on powerpuff girls

I added a comment on the talk page of WP:SS about making a template for the article that are splitted out --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AfD

[3] - Scarian^{Call me Pat} 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review feedback

Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APR _t 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't put in a direct request yet, no. Thanks for the pointer. I'm a little hesitant, though, offering to peer review, because I'm not really confident that I'm versed enough in Wikipedia's style guidelines, especially outside of the (relatively narrow) area I edit. I should probably get over that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you are comfortable with - one of the nice things about peer review is that you can point out fairly simple things in some cases (needs refs, expand the lead, avoid POV) and be very helpful. There are also volunteers who will review with no expectation of a return review, whichever works best for you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sanrio characters

I created the article. I've been thinking you'd like to know since you were favorable to the idea in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinki Lili. It's the first list I create so any help is welcome. Cenarium^Talk 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. At some point, someone will need to copy in summaries of the spinoff articles -- per WP:SS, the rule of thumb is to include twice as much information as the lead of the article listed in the Main template. Also, copy in some information from the Sanrio article that established the notability of the characters (sales figures would be prime material, of course.) This at least gives a merge target for the less than completely notable characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BarnSakura Award for Excellent Work

		The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
		For your extensive work cleaning up, sourcing, and performing needed merges at List of Fruits Basket characters, I felt you are quite deserving of a barnstar. :) Collectonian (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Awww. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slice of life

Hi. I saw you've edited the Slice of life story article and its talk page. Maybe you'd be able to answer a question I've made on the talk page regarding acceptable sources. Thank you, Cattus ^talk 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Already did by the time I saw this. :-) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

Thank you for your interest in List of Army Fortresses in Japan. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper I have made an attempt to find references for the article and could find nothing to support the assertions made. Consensus is leading to keep and improve, but I am not seeing where improve is an option. If I am mistaken and there are references available please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: astreal

Thanks for letting me know. I guess I've been on a deletionist rampage again today. I'll try to slow down. Sorry for the inconvenience. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about saying something to him, but I saw that like 10 people already had, so I didn't bother. I did forget that I had tagged that one page for deletion, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obnoxious

Regarding this Afd - I did not bring it to AfD to force cleanup, although I think it's a desirable outcome when other editors can do so. If you think it is obnoxious to discuss this article, you do not have to participate (as you did here; instead of weighing in on the discussion at hand, you merely insulted me). The changes being made here, whether it is deletion of the article or massive cleanup/rewrite, will be a net positive to Wikipedia, as the original article was not credible in the least. The applicable AfD guideline is:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

The article wasn't a hopeless case, as I did a google search and established notability. But, as I mentioned in the AfD, I didn't see anything in the article that could/should really be used - if I were tasked with the rewrite of the article, I would scrap all of the existing one and start over. Thus, I didn't feel it could be fixed through normal editing. Now I was faced with a conundrum - what the heck do I do with this article? I decided that an AfD discussion would generate the attention and perspective that was needed. I realize that you don't agree with this, but please consider assuming good faith here. I am not a rampant deletionist, nor do I mindlessly nominate articles for AfD. Tan | 39 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is best served, in this case, by assuming it on the part of creators. There are extensive avenues for improving articles, including tagging, templates, research and the like ... quite aside from simply giving creators a chance to do so themselves, many of whom are driven away when they find their initial efforts slammed within seconds. What NPP needs less of are people hitting Refresh on the new articles log every thirty seconds and more time looking at articles. If I sound angry to you, you're right, because I've turned up all too many articles at AfD nominated moments after creation where some effort, any effort, on the part of the nominator would have turned up the notability of the subject.  RGTraynor  15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair and true statement. (Quasi, sorry for using your talk page for this.) I feel that I do look at the articles before I take action - here, this was tagged as a CSD, and I removed that when I started the AfD. I have a near perfect track record with deletion noms, but it appears this was one of my few misses - which I feel is okay. The system is working the way it should - if every AfD ended in deletion, there's not much point to the system itself. As for nominating this soon after creation, well, this is a common complaint. I agree that many editors do not take the time they should to let certain articles develop. Again, though, in the case of this particular article, it was an overly long mess of an article with almost zero redeeming value. Seriously, make sure you take a good look through the original article in order to gain a perspective of how I felt when I first saw this. As you read through it, it becomes more and more apparent that there's nothing there to save.

However, I will take your comments under advisement in the future, and perhaps give gray-area articles a third look when I am considering an AfD. Thank you for your time and attention to this, I appreciate it. Tan | 39 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded in the AfD. No worries about taking the discussion here -- that's what talk pages are for. Oh, and the reason I hadn't otherwise offered an opinion was I hadn't gotten to it -- I was interrupted before I could finish reading the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwinian poetry AfD

Hey, I liked your response in the AfD discussion on Darwinian poetry. I don't agree with your vote, but your style and wit made a very positive impression! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankee. As a haiku, it lacks a certain something, but I at least met the form. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Want a mop?

You've always struck me as the sensible one of us all at WP:ANIME, as well as the constant voice of reason. I think you'd do great with the tools. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're spending too much time in the WP space, then that's a sign you would benefit from the tools :p That and you've cranked out a few FLs, so I wouldn't say you don't edit articles either. Most people have no idea what they want to do with the tools before they get them, but it never hurts to have them. That said, it's your decision whether you want to go through with it. If you're ever interested, I'm always willing to nominate you. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah -- it means I should stop wandering AfDs and guideline proposals. I'll think about over the next week. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding titles

WP:LEAD states: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface"

Thus, since List of Marmalade Boy chapters‎ is descriptive, it should not be boldface.--Crzycheetah 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I note for the record that all the FL anime and manga lists are all bolded the way I did, so it's at least the consensus of the FAC crew that it should be done that way. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)