User talk:Narutolovehinata5/Archives/2012/December

Why?

Why not bold the major roles? I mostly bold them (not just Haruka Tomatsu), but still it helps other people seeking for reference to know what anime or so. I just need a reason for that unforgivable action.

To put it in a nutshell, they shouldn't be bolded because bolding leading roles is not among the uses of bold listed at MOS:BOLD. See Aki Toyosaki (and the comment there) for an example. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then is it okay if I put a note saying: Major roles in Bold? That's what I've been doing see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rie_Kugimiya#1999 for example. I tend to edit it without logging but I guess it becomes a pain later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leofighter (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene but bolding roles by significance is subject and original research. That is why it shouldnt be done. Unless you have sources that state which role is major and which isnt.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm That's kinda a bit rude, I am not that stupid to randomly bold roles. Of course I do have sources such as the anime sties which in Japanese and MAL, and of course I watched the anime itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leofighter (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely, its not about wether you have extensive knowledge as long as what you add comes from a Third or first party RELIABLE source. Otherwise its considered original research. On another note its also unnecessary to specify which role was significant and which wasnt.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. you're the one missing the point. I stated above that the reference came directly from the producer which is "Japanese" where I put in MAL and watched it myself. So if the problem is reference, I shall put references. And it is necessary, for example if you have a favorite actress and want to watch all her movies where she appear, then it is helpful and by bolding roles distinguishes from Major and Supporting Roles. And by this statement "bolding leading roles is not among the uses of bold listed at MOS:BOLD" then linking it will do, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leofighter (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, MyAnimeList is not considered a reliable source. And did you even read MOS:BOLD? Even if it is helpful/useful, if it's not listed, then it shouldn't be done. It's a guideline, so editors should follow it as much as possible. If you believe that major roles should be bolded, then make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

T-shirt love!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

SAO Reception

Hi, I'll leave a more complete explanation here about why I removed that part in the SAO article. I believe the 'Reception' part of the article is supposed to give information such as sellings, awards, and reception by the overall community. However, the article being linked is an article of a video game internet website. Disregarding any personal opinion on the content of this article, this is basically the point of view of one specific person, which is not what you want to see on a neutral encyclopedia. That might have been ok if said person was some kind of reference authority in animation production, but as it is it's just a website american chronicler, whose usual topic of talk isn't even animation, therefore you can't even say it represents the american community reception. So, no, this does NOT belong here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Down3 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Patrolled

Sorry I didnt get to the articles it looks like they have been patrolled already I just have been busy a bit lately and have come on to edit just a bit at a time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)