Jump to content

User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
< Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 >

Disambig

Hey...since you work a lot with disambig pages, can you check the one I just made, Manga Bible, and see if I did it correctly? Most are red links, but I know at least two could support articles if someone wanted to make them, so it didn't seem fair to have that page going to the one article that was there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for cleanup. I usually handle the tweaks after someone else tackles it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to a set index as it is (obviously) only going to contain manga and OEL manga articles. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Champloo

Hey there,

I see you've been contributing to the article, Samurai Champloo. I started editing it over a year ago when it looked like this: [1]. Hard to believe, right? After a few edits, I brought the intro and character sections to their basically current form. At the time, I was trying to get through the plot, but somewhere around half way through I got tired and took a wiki break, one that has (unfortunately) lasted until now. That's why the detail in the plot section drops off around episode 13 -- that's when the break started! The text in the plot section that comprises material from after episode 13 is from the article's last incarnation. So I figure it's about time to wrangle in the the last 2/3rds of the article (from the plot section onwards). First I'm going to lay out the plot. It'll assuredly be too long at first. After it's all out there, I'll start chopping it down to size. If you see anything you want to add or notice something that needs changing, just give a holler... Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely candidates for SIAs?

Probably not - almost all variations on the name as eponymous titles, alternate versions and spin-offs which are dealt with within the article or the child articles (and the rest are picked up on the disambiguation page). The Big Names don't suffer from the problems that effect the B, C to Z class characters/titles - no one would try and name a character Batman these days without getting ambulance chasers crawling all over them (they are very important IP) and just look at the whole Marvelman business for how tricky this can get. Where SIAs tend to be needed are where you have common names for lower tier characters/titles as it'd be difficult to have an issue with that and no one can hope to keep up with all the names out there (although given databases and Google I suspect we might see less of this now, although it will mean it'll get increasingly difficult to find any new names eventually without resorting to unlikely combinations, like Dog Man Cheese). That said there may be some big names that might need a SIA but none of those strike me as being good candidates. (Emperor (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good idea on the redirects. I can't think if there is anything else but while we are on redirects "Spider-Man (Marvel Comics)" might be deemed an unlikely search term and what I've been doing (when I remember) is to set up redirects to the SIA pages based on "X comics" and "X comic" so that someone searching for something like Death comics will be taken straight there. So perhaps Spider-Man comics and Spider-Man Marvel Comics? People might search for them, not knowing there is only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor (talk • contribs)

Popups

Really? Occasionally mine don't work, but it's only because a page might not be completely loaded.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea how anything really works. Might as well go ask on the talk page.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene disambiguation

I agree its a standard disambiguation page, but isn't it also an "Ambiguous place name" according to the usage of {{geodis}}? --Tesscass (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that applied to pages that are only comprised of locations. It's not for regular dabs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't simply applying that geodis template. I was adding the Amiguouse place names category, not removing the regular {{disambig}} template, accorinding to the guidelines. --Tesscass (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jafar (Aladdin)

No but the article says he is a psychopath and to tell you the truth I rather agree. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't the person who added it originally, somebody else did. Somebody keeps altering the opening sentence stating that Jafar is a psychopath and not bothering to change the other references to his psychopathy, somewhat ruining the continuity. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss

The recent 3RR warnings might serve as an illustration of situations WP:BRD is meant to avoid. On Baba, there's a bold edit by Sesshomaru, a revert by Abtract, and then it should have gone to the Talk page instead of being again reverted by Sesshomaru. On the other side, on Saiyuki, Abtract lead with the bold edit, Sesshomaru reverted, and then it should have gone to Talk instead of being again reverted by Abtract. Both of you need to back down and become familiar with WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what I said for Baba and this is what I said for Saiyuki. I admit I was incorrect for doing the second revert on Baba, but wasn't he supposed to stop after I said to discuss these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were both wrong. The "supposed tos" go out the window every time you don't follow WP:BRD. You cannot expect your demands to discuss without reverting to be followed when you yourself won't stop reverting to discuss. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message you left me

I removed template which did not exist, as it was a red link. Why did you put it back? Minor Contributer (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry, though. Minor Contributer (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (disambiguation)

Yeah, I've had my three reverts.

But perhaps, rather than silently reverting, you'd like to explain on the talk page why you think it's so important to get rid of the "see also" box, when the editors like User:Bduke and User:Itub who actually write physics and chemistry pages think the box is useful. Jheald (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some liked it, others opposed the idea. There is currently no WP:CONSENSUS to keep the box. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The box has a long history on that page. Where there is no consensus, convention is to leave things as they were.
Secondly, as I wrote above, the editors who actually write physics and chemistry pages think the box is useful. Jheald (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it has a long history alright ... of edit warring, that is. Doesn't matter if you folks were the world's best scientists, WP:MoS:DP#Categories is against such redundancy. And where does it say that, "Where there is no consensus, convention is to leave things as they were."? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is how AfD works. "No consensus" means "keep" by default. --Bduke (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't try to leave me baffled. I know how an afd works, however, that's not how it is generally is for dabs. I've learned that much. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book Club or Black Black Club

Hi there again. Ive searched it over google and found these: Book versus Black. I think Black Book Club is correct.. or am I not? Axxand SPEAK ACT 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt my knowledge over this topic. If the manga states differently, then we should stick to what the Manga says. But if the translation in the Viz said otherwise, we have to go through Viz. But I am not particular with both of them. Since, I cant find Viz translation over the Black Whatever Club, we may stick to the Manga which is Black Black Club (Am I correct?). You may change the page as I am not sure if that is what the manga says. Thanks! Axxand SPEAK ACT 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which one VIZ uses either. I have seen "BBC" but not the full name. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBC as the section name is fine :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial?

What's controversial about my edit? I just changed it to the better by straighting up the layout. I did not change any facts. John Anderson (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explained here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not explaining your reasoning. The first word in an article shouldn't normally be a link, and the article desribes what the word usually means, i.e. someone who also has a first name. You are not explaining what's "controversial" either; the subject of the article is of course controversial in many ways, but what's controversial about my edit? Also please explain why fictional charcters shouldn't be under their own headline. John Anderson (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re you, Collectonian and Abtract

There is some discussion regarding attempting a remedy between the above mentioned at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Not really a winner... It is entirely possible you may wish to comment, but I urge you to anyway review the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:189.87.58.52

Hey, just thought you'd like to know that User:189.87.58.52 is trying to add the same OR statement to the Hulk (comics) article that he's tried to add to the Powers and abilities of the Hulk. I've reverted the edit twice but there just seems to be no getting through to him. Thanks Odin's Beard (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hana

You reverted my cleanup, claiming it was a "bad attempt" - could you explain why? Surely bits of it were right, at least?--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The piped stuff and red links need a good fix. Actually, the whole page will need changes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread what I did - I didn't add any pipes or red links. I've restored my fix - feel free to make further improvements. (The Hana... people and characters don't need to be listed, since they're under Hana (given name).)--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Sesshomaru, what was the reason for this [2]? Tymek (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a red link, which is what it was at the time. Either way, it is a blue link now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N (disambiguation)

If you really want a reliable source, here's what Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies has to say:

alignment: A basic description of the morality of an intelligent creature, as follows: lawful good (LG), lawful neutral (LN), lawful evil (LE), neutral evil (NE), chaotic evil (CE), chaotic neutral (CN), chaotic good (CG), neutral good (NG), or neutral (N).

--Muna (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boom

Hello. I need some assistance understanding our disambiguation pages. Can you help me by explaining what your ideas of cleanup on this article were? This is the version that you tagged for cleanup. What jumped out at you? Thanks E_dog95' Hi ' 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to see what others think. That's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Regarding your decline, why would you block us both if ALTTP is the one going against consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're both edit warring — irrespective of consensus, edit warring isn't on. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Sesshomaru...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say there. Whatever works will have to do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto characters topic

See this discussion. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read it, but don't quite have anything to say ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cha-La Head-Cha-La

I went and added the necessary reference tags for that article but for some strange reason chunks of the article have vanished from the actual article but remain in the edit box as if they were given hidden comment tags. It all seems strange, any ideas? Sarujo (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippolyta (comics)

Agreed - I've updated it. I won't have time to check out the incoming links any time soon so if you want to sort through them then feel free. (Emperor (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

Think you could do a B-Class Assesment? I'm guessing you've got more experience in that area than I do, and you're definetly a better copy-editor.--KojiDude (C) 15:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never quite understood the whole class assessment thing. You mean file a copy-edit request? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on editing of articles between A, C and S

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

  • Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
  • A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
  • The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is between you and Abtract (and also between Collectonian and Abtract) but not between you and Collectonian - that is what is says. If you can find a way of splitting up the dab pages, using my page or another parties, between you and Abtract then fine - the wording is that you cannot interact directly, which means each others edits and not the page, but avoiding a page the other has edited is the best way (and that includes talkpages). Lastly, you declining is not an option - if you violate the restriction you get sanctioned. I have acted in your interests in the past, and I am acting in them now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite

Why did you post this comment? I read the CSD G6, and I am not sure what I deleted. I would like to know how to fix the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean Arcayne. What comment? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I refer to this edit: (1) where you nominated it for deletion in accordance with CSD G6. I don't see a record of it now. Mind explaining what's going on? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that. Redirected talk pages are typically deleted. It's common practice to tag them with {{db-maintenance}} or {{db-talk}}. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, how was the issue fixed? The dab page is still there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, only the talk page was deleted. That's all that needs to be done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Girl

I saw your query on Emporer's talk page, and the risk of stepping on his/your/everyone's toes, thought I'd make a suggestion. It does seem a little clumsy, but also fairly reasonable to that Marvel Girl (comics) redirects to Jean, while Marvel Girl is a disambiguation page and Marvel Girl (Marvel Comics) doesn't exist. For these reasons:

  • A casual reader looking for information on "someone" called Marvel Girl will get a choice between all characters who've used that name (which might be confusing, but is still wise)
  • A comics reader who thinks to automatically disambiguate with (comics) will get directs to THE MAIN Marvel Girl automatically (although there should definitely be a See also... link at the top of the page for "other heroines called..")
  • There aren't any Marvel Girls from other companies, so there's no need to define by company (although conceivably a "See also: Mary Marvel" might be wise on both pages)

That said, I can't imagine it would be too contentious to redirect as you've suggested, even as I would personally suggest they don't need to. (Which probably doesn't help much..!) ntnon (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. I didn't read this before doing sorting out those redirects so they all pointed to Marvel Girl. It seems the best to do it that way because otherwise we'd be imposing our own opinions on this, which could get tricky. Equally if you redirected Marvel Girl (comics) to Jean Grey you would then need a really messy {{redirect}} hatnote to pick up those who really weren't looking for that specific Marvel Girl. This approach keeps things cleaner and allows the user to decide which Marvel Girl they are looking for. Marvel Girl (Marvel Comics) doesn't need to be redirected but redirects are free and a good way of scooping up variations - I have seen plenty of articles started at "X (Marvel Comics)" where there isn't an "X (comics)" (or perhaps even an "X") so it wouldn't surprise me if some people would throw out a link to an article like that (I know I often throw out an "X (comics)" link and then check what is there rather than searching for each one). I wouldn't go out of my way to redirect every one but as it came up I thought it worth the time to throw one in.
On a related set index note I did these yesterday as they:
Not sure what everyone thinks but it might be worth putting a link into the alias section as they nearly all have their alias there. (Emperor (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Simple answer is that I have never seen {{R comics naming convention}} before but will be adding it to my quick reference page right now and will use it in the future. If you wish to change any that I've done previously then help yourself. (Emperor (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry I don't understand the question. (Emperor (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ah. OK. No there is nothing else I can think of - I have dropped in a redirect from marvel girl comics and the various links should help snag any of the searches (because if you searched previously you'd not actually find any of the articles on the first page of the search results for those terms, which is odd). (Emperor (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good.

Thank you very much for duly noting my point. Much obliged.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbel

To answear your question, Tarbel or Table is one of the new characters from the upcoming Dragon Ball feature "Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!". Acorrding to the site Kanzentai, he is suppost to be Vegeta's younger brother. I'm kind of holding out until more confromation shows up at the ANN or Daizenshuu EX as their claim of the release date premiere location contradict what has been announced in the news. See, I'm champing at the bit to add Tarbel to Vegeta's family tree page. Since, off the record, in my opinion their's no doubt about the relation between the two given the facial features and hairstyles. Sarujo (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Man (comics)

Tricky one - I'm not sure of a good solution to that. Wonder Man (disambiguation) is almost a SIA. It might be the best move is to take Wonder Man of to its own entry and move the disambiguation to the top slot and refocus as an SIA with the film in "see also" but then if other Wonder Man articles crop up it might be best to turn that into a proper disambiguation (and I don't think the other Wonder Man articles really require the top slot to be a disambiguation. So I think it is best to leave it as it is but keep it in mind and something might occur to someone. (Emperor (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! problems

There are some problems brewing at this page which I've discussed it's talk page but I can't this alone. Sarujo (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Why not ask Collectonian? She probably knows something I don't. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now it does. But as I stated it the talk page, everybody's putting too much stock in what the site Kanzentai is stating on their page. Like their claim that film was released on September 21, which was this past Sunday, when other sites state that it's some time this november at the Jump Super Anime Tour. Plus there's the problem with people changing Tarbel name to Table. But I'll talk to Collectonian. Sarujo (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig tags

I replaced all the disambig tags. Sorry about that, done under stress, should have thought it through. Ex nihil (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball characters

Don't know if you've been following along, but the merge consensus' are being attacked by a few folks on the talk page (none of the keeps are, of course). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be only one person who didn't sign their post. Or is there a discussion I'm unware of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGC is siding with those claiming the merges were against consensus, which includes Lord Opeth and GlassCobra. JJJ999 actually filed a deletion review against the merges (obviously closed as it wasn't a deletion) and canvassed a bunch of folks against the merges to it. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, please see the note I left you on your talk page. GlassCobra 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, I have just found the discussion and left a comment there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some folks are now using the questioning of the two merges as an excuse to undo ALL of them.[3] Hope those folks are all happy now :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much opposition is there exactly? Thought it was only the Cell and Tien Shinhan mergers, and now Goten. Who else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, only Cell and Tien Shinhan were being disagreed with. I can't imagine even these folks could claim that Goten was not clear consensus, but of course others are going to use the first two as an excuse to undo them all. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor named User:Thanos6 seems to be causing the most disruption. See edits of recent. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebub (disambiguation)

I'm not sure I'm understanding which part of the manual of style you're referring to, with regard to edits like this edit and your summary "The rules do say to link it to somewhere". If indeed you are referring to the MOS portion that says redlinks should have other articles that link to them (which would be why you did not remove the other redlinked entry on the list, even though it is for a crystal-balled not-yet-existent movie), then Beelzebub (comics) qualifies. It's just that most of our links here went to the generic Beelzebub article. I've redirected those as appropriate, which should now satisfy the MOS condition to which you were referring, if that is indeed what you meant. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could do because there is a red link at DC Universe. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

The latest discussion was August 24, 2008. I do not remember being told about this in particular; maybe I was told about not linking dates unless they were full dates, but the full dates thing seems to be very recent. - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_D6#Again_calling_for_date_linking_to_be_deprecated WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion it looks like the community merely decided that full dates should NOT be formatted in a manner that allows autoformatting.

  • "Some people feel significant dates should still be linked, others feel readers can look up the date on their own if they want to, and there is no need to link it. If you do link a date, it should be done so that it will not be autoformatted. If you just link the year, no autoformatting will occur. If you want to link the month and day, you could use a pipe, something like February 29. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)"

From Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_autoformatting#Confused_about_options_and_usage - So, if Ashton is correct, we can still link significant dates - we just cannot have them in an autoformat format. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I found (from 16:46) is that what is deprecated is wikilinking for the purposes of autoformatting (so the date can display differently depending on preferences set by registered users, i.e. either in U.S. style or British style) Ashton said that significant some readers believe that significant full dates should still be linked, while other readers believe that significant full dates should not be linked. Therefore the wikilinking date statement does not address whether significant full dates should be wikilinked period. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would ask to either further clarify the autoformatting decision or to have a definite decision over whether full dates should be linked or unlinked. IMO sooner or later the date linking and date unliking groups could clash somehow, so it may be good to have a definite discussion that could produce a consensus. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about linking dates for births and deaths of biographies here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_autoformatting#Confused_about_options_and_usage WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete requests

Kiss (disambiguation)

Hi. I'm interested to see you've tagged Kiss (disambiguation) for cleanup.
What needs cleaning up? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, however, it is likely that someone affiliated with WP:WPDAB will view the page and "perfect" it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a good strategy! Yes, an interested expert will do a much better job than I could. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Thanks for reminding me! I moved it back and left a note on the user page. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic debuts

Regarding this, shouldn't we categorize articles by only the first debut? I know WP:ANIME has a guideline for something like this, but I'm not sure what WP:CMC says about it. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it, and I think the separate debut cats is the wisest. We are categorizing the character, not the name. And just because we don't have separate entries for each character with the name "Cheetah" (to take one example), doesn't mean we couldn't. The four Cheetahs are four separate characters; we have them organized as one for convenience's sake, since they have interrelated histories. I was also taking precedent from external reference material, such as the DC Encyclopedia, in which similar characters have distinct, separate entries, each with their own year of debut. It gets complicated in a lot of DC cases, because they have a strong tendency towards legacy characters, who reuse the same names over and over, sometimes with only very indifferent historical overlap. We would however be committing an absurdity on our readers if we categorized Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes) as a 1939 debut, rather than 2006, because that was the year the first BB came out. Ford MF (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't seriously biting, just kidding. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by Superman. Clearly, there is only one "Clark Kent, Superman". I suppose there are other versions, e.g. Elseworlds like "Red Son", who could be considered as distinct characters, but there is generally no confusion over who we mean when we say "Superman". And even though Superboy is in-universe a young Superman, he is also clearly a distinct character, as can be evidenced by the recent court decision that said DC has the copyright to Superman, but not Superboy. So yeah, there is perhaps no absolute yardstick for what constitutes a distinct "character", but I'm happy with going with consensus (separate entries here) or external, third-party precedent (separate entries elsewhere). Ford MF (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, well, any in which multiple characters are combined into one entry, e.g. Bulletman and Bulletgirl (he first appeared in 1940, she in 1941). I expect there are going to be quite a few. Another solution is creating distinct redirects and adding those to the categories, but I think that'd create far more mess than it's worth. In all of the multiple-character articles I've come across so far, it's been pretty self-evident that there are numerous characters with numerous debut dates. Ford MF (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo (disambiguation)

Sure, no problem. Propaniac (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dab should be at Gonzo since Gonzo just redirects to the dab, but it didn't bother me enough to do anything about it. Since there is a history at Gonzo, if you want to have the dab moved there I suggest you place there the WP:SPEEDY deletion template that's designed to make room for moves (I think it might be db-move, but not sure). That's always worked for me. Propaniac (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To move Gonzo (disambiguation) to Gonzo, I'm pretty sure the current history at Gonzo does have to be deleted one way or another. If you don't want to use the speedy-delete template, the only other method I know of is to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I'm no expert on this particular issue; you may want to ask for further guidance at the Talk pages for MOS:DP or WP:DAB. Propaniac (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morbius, the Living Vampire

The chances are poor. We have merged in previous attempts and I don't see a good case for it. The only time it works is where the character is a big as Superman or Batman. It could also be justified where the title isn't just about the character - the only example I can think of is Wisdom which is more a play on Peter Wisdom's name but is actually the first series focused on MI: 13 (and yes it doesn't have its own article either although I am, slowly, working on it). (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hatnote

Hi, There's an AfD you might like to comment on. PamD (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote AfD

You might want to note this, and hence also this. — neuro(talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I have added Francoise Arnoul (Cyborg 009) to Category:Cyborg 009 characters, just to get it started. I hope you don't mind. I just thought I'd help. Are you okay with that?Kitty53 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard discussion

Jc37, would you mind commenting at Talk:Wizard#Cleanup? It would be nice to hear your thoughts on the subject. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I've responded there. - jc37 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Hulk powers page

A few people apparently decided to try to get it deleted/censored. Feel free to pitch in before it´s too late: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics Dave (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requests for arbitration#Abtract and Collectonian (and Sesshomaru)

Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request (You may wish to review both the request and the main page before doing so.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon (comics)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my revert of this article. I just figured I'd let you know that there was a disscussion about these changes. :)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 35#Speed Demon complication

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sesshomaru/Archive_14&oldid=1139037656"