Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels

Merge

I can't delete this, but it should be merged into the chapters section, as it's not notable or large enough to merit it's own page.Westrim (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't delete it, it shouldn't be deleted. This does not belong in the List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters at all. These aren't manga chapters nor volumes, they are light novels. And most have already been released in English, passing the necessary notability guidelines for at least having a stand out list as the table was too large to continue being in the main article. Summaries are needed, but the list is fine as is and in keeping with all applicable guideline.s And, please, don't carry over the tracklist debate here. Such retaliation tactics is really not helpful to anyone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't delete because my status isn't high enough. And obviously we would change the chapters page name to something else, I shouldn't have to repeat that every time I comment on this (see the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga discussion). If they're being translated to english, that should be noted in the introduction. I'm not retaliating; as I said there, I really don't think this has standalone notability. It belongs with the other print media.Westrim (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Its noted clearly in the table. No it doesn't belong in other print media. Per the MoS, we keep them separate. You are retaliating just because you disagree with me and likely still sore over the Geass page, as I don't see you demanding every other light novel list be merged or arguing against the existence of an entire category for such lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the table. I am not retaliating, as I've already said. There's no need since consensus backs me, and it's not my style. What emotions I have on this are closer to sad than angry. I have given you no reason to assume bad faith. I'm not at all sore over the Code Geass settings and themes page- Rogue Penguin executed the merge, so go ahead and ask him if that's true, instead of making accusations and insinuations. The only reason I'm pursuing this is because it was brought to my attention.Westrim (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus backs the existence of this page, and you in fact are the one who reminded me that it needed to be split. If you aren't retaliating, you wouldn't even be complaining about this list when there are NINE novels for this series, anymore than you'd complain about any of the others. Or will you also say the List of Trinity Blood light novels and List of Blood+ light novels or any others should be merged back to their lists? I haven't seen you attack any other light novel list, only this one that I just created after YOU pointed out it hadn't been done yet. And I know who did the merges and I still got attacked for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about consensus for the soundtrack. I only reminded you that these tables didn't belong on the main page. If by others, you mean the other light novel pages, I haven't even seen them to know whether they can stand alone. I'm only addressing this one as a general cleanup of the FMA category, because it was brought up during the discussion of the soundtrack (and before you say it, yes by me, but it was a valid comparison), and because it was just created. The number of novels doesn't matter, they're just not notable enough. Nothing more than a couple sentences of summary for each novel can be realistically added. You're creating an atmosphere of animosity, not me. I had nothing to do with any personal attacks- if you'll recall, I even defended you during the settings and themes AfD.Westrim (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, all episode and manga chapter lists don't belong either as nothing an be said about them but a summary for each one. Have fun deleting them all. Meanwhile, this list stays put and will continue to be worked on, just like all our other light novel lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Those episode and chapter lists are generally the main source material for their respective series, so that's a misleading comparison. As I have said repeatedly, I want this merged into a renamed chapter section, like several other series I've come across with a minority light novel series, not deleted outright. I just don't have the means to follow up a merge with the deletion of this article.Westrim (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. The FMA manga is the primary work. Its list does NOT need cluttering with light novels that are perfectly fine in a light novel list (which is valid and reasonable per the MoS). This list will NOT be merged there without real consensus and a valid merge discussion (I notice you are attempting a merge without even tagging the target and source pages). Calling it a "minority" light novel series when you have already admitted you know nothing about them or how well they are selling only shows that you are not doing this for any other reason than to aggravate me because I created the list. If someone else had done it, I doubt you'd have said a word. FYI, these "non notable" novels were mentioned in the LA times as a way to encourage kids to read. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done no work towards doing a merge, as I am not able to complete such a task, so stop the insinuations. I inferred that they were not very popular from the lack of notice or work on them, and that they were secondary to the manga and anime as they expounded on previous material instead of continuing or adapted it (the parts included in episodes excepted). I've seen no mention of their events in the manga, which is as you said the primary source. You are the one attempting to aggravate while Ive made every effort towards calm, and you have made no effort to assume good faith. If I think something is out of place I'll say so regardless of whether it's you or my mother. Perhaps we could make a catchall Other Media page to accommodate the videogames, soundtracks, drama cd's and novels. I would support that and I've seen it done that way elsewhere before. Regardless, we should get some sleep before continuing this- it's 11:55 in Texas, right?Westrim (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Project consensus has already strongly rejected "catch all" media pages, repeatedly. Specific lists by media are more appropriate, and done when its felt such a split is appropriate. This is why most of those other lists you've seen are being merged properly back to the main article, such as has been done with Dragon Ball, Bleach, Naruto, etc. A video game list MIGHT be appropriate, as it does have nine of them, but so far the section has little information hence no reason to create one. And I see no reason I should assume good faith when you pounced on this list as soon as it was created, despite its creation being completely with in the bounds of the MOS, while demanding it be merged into another list going against the MoS and existing consensus. You haven't given any reason for it except YOU think they aren't notable, despite knowing nothing about it. Now, if you had suggested merging in the art/data books, that might have made sense to me, but suggesting these novels, which are notable enough to have a list at the least, be merged with the manga chapters is silly. That would just bloat the manga list and, eventually, it would just be split right back out again. And what does the time have to do with anything? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, both following paragraphs written last night:

Oh, didn't know that. It probably was the Bleach page, as I first discovered that series two years ago. I was thinking of all those individual video game pages, not the entry on the main page- they definitely need to be consolidated. I didn't pounce on the list, you created it right after I suggested merging it; please stop continuing to use misleading language. For that matter, please stop what appears to be a perception that any criticism of an article is a criticism of you. I never said it wasn't notable, only that it's not notable enough. I'm not sure how much knowledge you want me to have. I know that most of the editing work on this topic has been done one person(which highly indicates low notability), that the first book was a basis for two episodes, and that the rest are either adaptations or standalone exposition. No, I haven't read them, but I don't see why I need to unless I start writing summaries.A list just means that it has numbers, not that it's notable. And sure, add the Art books-sorry, I forgot to suggest them in my catchall hypothesis, I tried to get all the media- with some expansion, they might pump this up enough to allow it to stand alone. Perhaps we could add the drama cd's to a playlist page as well. The only reasons I suggested a merger with the manga page are it's not belonging on the main page, not sufficient enough to sustain its own page, and the manga page being also print media. Finally, I mentioned the time because people are generally more agreeable after a good nights sleep, and I thought with some time to mull this over we could work together rather than against each other.

UPDATE after writing the above I dug around more (using the search term "list of media"), and I think the origin of my thought on a media page lies with RahXephon, not Bleach. It also has the same "an article for every cd" philosophy that GITS:SAC does, both of which could consolidate them into one page. The dolem list is also unnecessary as a standalone article, although I think its info should be merged into the character page (it's basically a mecha page, but the show has little emphasis on any of them or their abilities except RahXephon). It's media page seems well done and coherent, so I'd like to know why such pages were rejected. If you could help me clean this up, I'd appreciate it.Westrim (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but WTF kind of argument is that? Only one person has worked on this list so it isn't notable? Hell, half our episode and chapter lists are primarily worked on by one person, and never mind I had it tagged in use most of yesterday which polite people know means "don't edit it right now because I'm actively working on it." Hell, I wish I could use that argument to delete real non-notable stuff, not something like this. You also are forgetting these were one of the first light novels Viz released in English, which is additional notability. And no, the drama CDs don't need to be added to a playlist either. There is little information about them, and they generally don't have "tracklists" in the traditional sense. So far, no one agrees with you, so I'm not worried about this insane merger happening. And yeah, some articles, like RahXephon still needs to be cleaned up, but the trend is still clear, wholescale media lists are nothing but dumping grounds for all kinds of stuff and should be merged back to the main article in the proper section per the MoS, then if appropriate, media specific splits (such as a list of episodes, chapters, etc) done.

And sorry, but I have no desire to work with or help you on those articles, especially GITS. I have enough headaches dealing with the monster that is Dragon Ball. That said, yes, the dolem list is totally unnecessary and should be merged, with culling, to the character list, nor does every CD need an article. RahXephon's media list is not well done at all, its a big mush of everything that is fairly useless and certainly could never be a featured list with its lack of focus (which is one of the primary reasons it was demoted less than a year after its FL promotion). It needs to be appropriately split into a real episode list, a real manga chapter list (with formatting), and the rest merged back to the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying WTF about someone's ideas is inherently offensive (especially when a large amount of animosity is displayed towards everything else that person has said), so offense taken. Even if I am wrong, the consistently hostile tone you have taken from my very first post here and even to my first post about the playlists on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga page has been in violation of civility, the Golden Rule, Assume good faith, WP:BITE (I've only been active for three and a half months, after all), WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and I'm tired of it. As stated on WT:ANIME, I have asked other editors to assist in mediating this conflict- I'm surprised you haven't already, since you've been here so long and I'm only just learning the ropes.

Now. As for your response to my thoughts on notability, I believe you misunderstood. On an article as for something as popular as FMA, it is reasonable to expect more editors working on it than the episode and chapter lists of the hundreds of series that have far lower viewership. That on a page this presumably well traveled only you and, as I found, Tintor2, have significantly edited the novel section (i.e., not grammar and such) is telling. To clarify, I am talking about the section on the main page and the seeming lack of notice of it, not this article, at the moment. I do think this is notable, just not notable enough to stand alone. My latest thought (which you brought up after I forgot to, but haven't acted on) is that an expanded and graphed artbook section be added to this to bring up the content and add notability. I would be more than willing to compromise and work on that, and thus remove the need to merge it. We can talk about the drama cd's in the playlist section.

You speak of no one agreeing with me, but the fact is only one person besides we two has weighed in here, and they think that numbers=notability in any case, which is at least as ridiculous as 1 editor= nonnotability in any case, as your misinterpretation of my last post said. I repeat my request for info on why ALL media lists are bad- sure, some get out of hand, but others, like RahXephon's, look fine to me. They're useful when something only has one or two pieces of media for each category (excepting the anime, which should be split off). It's focus is on media, which seems clear enough, and there must have been a reason it was made an FL in the first place. I will try to clean it up to bring it up to current standards.

To finish up here, I'll say that my primary goals on this site are to add my knowledge to it (ie filling holes) and to improve it in conjunction with the rest of the community, which includes you. I do want to work together with you and to surmount our differences (as I believe I have done with rogue penguin on several occasions) to find the things that we agree on. However, your hostility to differences of opinion and skepticism of such are, as noted at the beginning of this post, making that exceedingly difficult.12:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(The first part was written around 1600 UTC on 8/15/08 , most of the rest written around 0400 UTC on 8/16/08, and copy editing and a couple more additions were done at around 1230 UTC, as well as the concurrent posts on User talk:The Rogue Penguin, User talk:Tintor2, and WT:ANIME. A request for mediation was made on WP:3O at 0730 UTC on 8/16/2008.)

The comments made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels as just as valid. Doceirias there, and below, sees the list as valid as is and you don't get to discount a very experienced project member just because you don't like how he stated it. Quasirandom there disagrees with your idea of merging the novels and manga. That's two disagrees with your idea, one clearly supporting this list. No one agrees with you. I'm the one who posted that message on WT:ANIME asking for additional opinions, not you. There is no need to "compromise" on your idea of adding in the art book, because there is no support at all for your proposed merger, none. No support = it stays as is, a normal, regular chapter list. If you can't see why the suspicious of your timing on attacking this list as soon as it was created is a reason for me being hostile from the get go, considering our only other past history, then I can't really say much there. You didn't even let me finish working the page, like doing the lead, etc. You didn't start a discussion asking why the split was appropriate, and instead demanding a merger. And, FYI, this list does not have to establish full notability. We don't split off episode and chapter lists because they are notable, we primarily split them off because of size (usually 13+ episodes or 6+ volumes gets a separate list). Not every series gets one or both.

You claim to be new, and okay, fine, but that alone should tell you that when three experienced editors who have been active in this project awhile, who are well versed in project consensus and guidelines are telling you the list is fine, maybe you should learn and listen instead of just presuming we have no clue about notability and what we are doing. I've already noted how to fix the RahXephon media list, but it sounds like you fully intend to again completely ignore the voices of experience and instead do what you think is write despite it. That, to me, does not show any desire to want to work with anyone, much less me. I'm happy to teach those willing to learn (ask Tintor *grin*), but yeah, I do tend to get annoyed and have little regard for those those who make it clear they want to ignore attempts at following established guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, had Olympics, sleep, and etc. to attend to; just got around to reading responses. So, to business.

I am getting really tired of you not reading what I've written or at best misunderstanding it. I addressed those two comments on that page, if you bothered to look, and as can be now plainly seen below. To reiterate, numbers, to my knowledge, do not make or break a list, notability does, and the second comment was obsolete, regardless of his experience. You did make that initial post for more opinions, but since there were only two and both were very brief, I asked for more; not sure how you construed my saying I had done that as taking credit for what you did. I suggested it before the page was finished in an attempt to save you the trouble, not to sabotage you or attack it. Seeing as how we were already discussing another topic, and during that topic I said something that triggered this articles creation, how is it suspicious that I knew of it quickly? If I didn't want this to exist, I wouldn't have spent 45 minutes hunting down a free version of that LA Times article to support it, now would I? I had hoped that would make it clear that I wanted to cooperate, but apparently not.

If by our past history you mean the Piq article, forgive me, but it was YOU who attacked, not me and attacked without considering any possibility that I had made a mistake. As I had to say repeatedly there, I didn't realize that sentence was part of a reference, not the article, but on your first revert you accused me of vandalism, and tagged my user page to that effect. Even after I realized my mistake and said so, you continued to accuse me of it. This despite having already communicated during the Code Geass AFD's and my editing history being readily available to an experienced user such as yourself.

I fully agree with the split of this from the main page, as repeatedly stated, I'm just not sure it can stand all on it's own, and thus suggested that it be merged with something similar. I have never demanded this be merged, only given my opinion that it should. Part my problem is that this is secondary media for this series, not primary media like the chapters and episodes that are regularly split off from the main page.

On your second paragraph, it's not a claim, it's the truth, and an easily verifiable truth at that. If you don't know how, I realized several weeks ago that by going to my contributions page and and opening another users page (such as your users page), by cutting and pasting the special:contributions script I could see their contributions. There may be a more official way, but that's the one I have. Sorry I didn't check up on the other two users when they commented, but I never presumed that they didn't have a clue, I just thought that Doceiras' scope was too narrow (focusing only on numbers), and that Quasirandom didn't realize we were no longer talking about a manga page merge by the time he commented. I'm not ignoring you about the RahXephon list, we just have different philosophies. I did take your concerns about it's neglected state into account and if you want to help clean it up you're welcome to. If after the cleanup anything aside from the episodes looks like it needs splitting we can take care of that. I'm perfectly willing to learn and work with you, but you have acted very unwilling to teach, and have displayed hostility towards me at every turn. I've managed to work with (and learn from) Rogue Penguin just fine, despite our frequent differences of opinion. Westrim (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While your finding the free version was appreciated and all, it wasn't necessary. I'd already requested (and received) it from my library. You can claim that "numbers" don't make the notability, but the fact is consensus disagrees with you. Not a single person has supported your claim at all, and I can't think of a single person who has commented here, except maybe the 30, who is not heavily experienced in the anime/manga project and who knows exactly what kind of lists are and are not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep away from stepping on anyone's toes, but it looks like the number of novels and the English translations thereof more than meets the notability requirements for a stand alone list. Doceirias (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From WT:ANIME

I've copied this from talk:WikiProject Anime and manga so that all comments about this discussion are available in one place and can be found in this talk's history later

As noted above, the FMA light novel table was too large to continue being in the main. Its been on the To Do list for some time to split it out, so I did that today, splitting it into List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels. Within hours of its creation, User:Westrim has suggested it doesn't belong as a stand alone list and wants to merge it to the already well formed and on-going List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters, renaming that list to some unmentioned other name. I obviously disagree. There are at least 9 FMA novels, and as the manga series is on-going, its possible there will be more. The main novelizations are being released to English, so summaries and additional information can be properly added. Please add your thoughts at Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels#Merge -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Minutes actually, since I was already working on the soundtrack side of things when I noticed its creation. I don't remember what the equivalents I've seen were named, but I'd think something like FMA Chapters and Novels would work just fine. I don't consider them notable enough to stand alone, that's all.Westrim (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine strikes me as more than enough to justify a separate list. Doceirias (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem with merging the manga chapters and novel volumes is they are different formats and releases. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, on both points. Meanwhile, I decided to try something different for our usual novel lists and am adding a reception section. Would help if I had the novels though (library still behind on carrying those)...anyone have them who can see if they have any info about their creation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The conversation has advanced beyond this on the light novel talk page, but I'll briefly restate that my primary objection is that the light novels, in terms of the franchise as a whole, are not notable enough to give them a full article of their own. A merge with the chapters was suggested only because it was the closest existing media page by type to the light novel page, and I've seen manga and novels fit together quite well on other pages. That said, go to the aforementioned talk page for current thoughts. Oh, and Doceirias, we don't decide whether something gets a separate page by how many of them there are. It is nice to see that the one who accused me of knowing nothing about the novels apparently hasn't read them either. Westrim (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read them but at least I knew they had been released in English without having it pointed out to me, besides it being blatantly clear on the list. Also, lists != article, so please stop trying to apply the same standards of one to the other. It has enough notability and content to have its own list. And no, the conversation hasn't advanced beyond this on the light novel page, its just you and I going around the same circles. You - "it isn't notable enough, stick it in the manga page" = Me - "It is notable and no, it will not be merged." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I was reading the introduction, not the graph. Stop slamming me on things I've already explained to you. Obviously we disagree on notability. Even more obviously, you aren't actually reading what I write because no, I thought of a compromise that didn't necessitate their move to the manga page.Westrim (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean adding the artbooks, I'm the one who mentioned it first, not you, and only as a side thought for a separate discussion, not this one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant using the artbooks as a way to compromise. And as I said, I DID mean to mention the artbooks during my proposal to make a media page; it was the only type besides the already established manga and anime that I didn't mention, so leaving it out clearly wasn't intentional. and beg pardon, but it wasn't a side discussion, it was this same one; whether the light novels are notable enough to stand on their own, and if not then where to put them or what to add to them to make them notable enough. If the artbooks, with their own graph and expanded detail, were added to the novel page (renamed to something like FMA Books), then that would be sufficiently notable for me. But to restate, my position is that as it is now, with only summaries left to be added, I do not think the light novels stand on their ownWestrim (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As no one else has agreed with you so far, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. The page will stay as is and continue being expanded as a light novel list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd argument. No one has agreed with either of us: the only two others to weigh in here contributed one sentence each of limited scope , one to say a merger to the manga wouldn't work, which I have repeatedly ceded the point on, and one who thought the numbers counted when they don't. Notability and detail counts. I've asked Rogue Penguin, because I've worked with him before, and Tintor2, the only other editor of the novels that I could find, to weigh in, and have requested Wikipedia:Third opinion. Again, I support this articles expansion, but do not think the novels are notable enough to stand on their own. And also again, if the artbooks are added, along with more material and a table for them, I think that will bump it up to a decent level of notability. Westrim (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers do matter; if there were only a couple of novels, we would probably cover them in the media section of the main article. Nine novels means that section becomes long enough to justify a split for reasons of length. In addition to that, I asserted that the novels being translated into English is extremely solid grounds for notability. Doceirias (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, I agree that the novels should be split from the main page, but I also believe they are unable to stand alone. Yes they are notable, just not quite notable enough. However, there are several artbooks, at least one of which was released in the U.S., that could easily be included here, as AnmaFinotera was the first to note, and I have tried to propose in my last several entries. We're all on the same side here: I want to keep this, I just think the novels all by themselves are not notable enough. Westrim (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And no one agrees with you, so why not just drop it already? Multiple people have told you it is fine, including multiple project members, a person you asked yourself to respond, the 3O responder, and someone well versed in anime/manga lists.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 1

Creating a new section for additional comments as the main section above is getting too long. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with no merging the lists. The length of the light novels is okay and has distribution, reception and a bit of creation in the lead. The manga list and the light novels lists are very different things so I oppose to the merge.Tintor2 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We stopped talking about a merge with the manga list a while ago; please read all comments. The question now is whether the artbooks should be expanded and added to this and whether the light novels can stand alone, the latter of which you just gave your opinion on.Westrim (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The discussion is still about the manga merge suggestion and whether this list can stand alone. When that is done, if you still want to propose merging the artbooks, that should be a separate discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you aren't reading what I've said at all; I dismissed the idea of a merge with the manga page for a media page(04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), and then from there went to the artbook merger idea (14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)). It's all there in my posts, not that you apparently do any more than skim them (or when you do read them, misunderstand, act on that misunderstanding, and the promptly forget it happened, as you've already responded several times on the artbooks). The discussion is still about a merge; only what should be merged into what has changed. Westrim (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It is all the same discussion because you (and you alone) think this list MUST be merged with something to stand as it is. Multiple people have disagreed with you and the obvious consensus is no merge is needed at all, not the the chapter list and not with artbooks not with anything else. This list can stand by itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I had to go a bit roundabout, but I found the reference here: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/29/entertainment/ca-manga29 Just because I want it moved doesn't mean I don't want it sourced.Westrim (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I see no basis for the assertion that these are non-notable. Can the editor asserting non-notability please directly and succinctly cite which relevant policy or guideline criteria that are allegedly not being met? Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not really an issue with lists like this. The more relevant issue is whether it is more appropriate to present the information in another list or the parent article. This type of list is fine really. Light novels are distinct from manga volumes, which is the basis for List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters, and there's enough items. Rule of thumb I usually have with lists like this is whether you can pass WP:FLC with it. If it's too short (current consensus at FLC dictates a relative minimum of 10 items, but if each item is large enough, say the six-item List of FLCL episodes that has large plot summaries and a significant lead, then it is fine), then merge it into another article. This could pass at FLC if cleaned up adequately. Oh, and to the comment that I read during the discussion - one person working on an article indicates no notability? I've worked on 29 featured lists for WP:ANIME, and in about 20 of those I did practically all the work (only in 2 of them was I not a majority contributor). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To Jclemens: I'm not saying that this is not notable, just that it's not notable enough to stand alone, and that it should be merged (intact and whole) into another article (the manga page and media page proposals), or have more material merged into it (the current artbook expansion and merge proposal); I am not opposed to this article existing. As I'm still fairly new at this, I didn't have a criterion in mind when I proposed the merge, and freely say that I cannot find anything that supports non notability. When I proposed it, my concerns were: A. despite being on the main page of a presumably popular topic, little editing had been done on the by any aside from two editors (more later) B. status as a secondary media of the series, and C. the existence of other media (the manga) that I believed this could fit with having seen other articles that had done that. Since then, much of that has been explained to be wrong or ill informed, which I accepted and have adjusted to accordingly, to the point that if AnmaFinotera could set aside her animosity, she would realize that we both agree that the art books should be included here (per her suggestion), and my opinion that this isn't quite notable enough to stand alone rendered moot. Unfortunately, as mentioned her high animosity level and constant accusations (such as "You are retaliating just because you disagree with me") left me constantly on the defensive and unable to work towards the cooperation I'd much prefer. This has happened before, when she accused me of vandalizing the Piq page and tagged my talk page accordingly, then refused for a time to accept that I had only made a mistake and didn't realize I removing a sentence from a reference description, and not the article. I don't have any animosity over these events, but they are disheartening and frustrating as a beginning editor. For comparison, I've had similar disagreements with an editor named Rogue Penguin, but due to a willingness to compromise and work together we were able to work them out.

To sephiroth: I just covered most of your concerns above, but I'll add that I have always believed that this list is fine. On the one editor working thing; to me it does, when the section in question is part of the page for a popular series that is presumably well traveled. If there are only two people that are changing anything aside from the grammar, that indicates to me that few of the pages visitors know enough about the segment to contribute anything, which indicates decreased notability to me. Many of the list you worked on, aside from their status as lists which automatically cuts traffic, are on less or far less popular topics than FMA is. Westrim (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017162024/http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?series_id=383 to http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?series_id=383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217234945/http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-novels-vol01_article_82350.html to http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-novels-vol01_article_82350.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?product_id=6638

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspect typo

from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click outfittees->outfitters? context: ~~~ ranslitTitle = Arata na Hajimari | Summary =In Rush Valley, Winry starts working as an apprentice for Mr Garfiel, a somewhat unusual automail mechanic. But her view on how automail outfittees
outfittees relate to their prosthetics changes as she meets a young boy who tragically lost a leg only to have a badly fitted replacement leg which causes him regular pain. Winry struggles to win his trust so ~~~