User talk:AnmaFinotera

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Are you here about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?
• Why did you change the reflist tag in an article to the references one, or visa versa?
• What do you mean you're "wikibonked"?

Review Fires on the Plain

Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly though I understand you are Wikibonked. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's getting there. A few notes: Awards should be a subsection under Reception. Availability should be renamed distribution, moved up above reception, and include the theatrical release information (per MoS). The lead needs quite a bit of work to meet the MoS and WP:LEAD. Anything else from the interviews that can expand out the production section? What is the "Bibliography" for at the end? Is the book about the film? Is it being used as a reference? With the wealth of reviews available, including the Rotten Tomatoes score is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I'd remove that line and start straight with the modern review remarks. Also, some ref format fixing is needed :) Hope that helps. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put "Awards" under "Reception". A couple of questions come to mind quickly: Though I said that this is not a review for B class, would you say this is more close to B class or to start? Should I get more images for the article? Does the "Modern Reviews" section strike you as unnecesary (or atleast the title;P)? Citizen Kane is older and doesn't have it. However I'd be a liar if I said that another guy made that, I did to hold the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Speaking of that, do you think that we should get rid of the rotten tomatoes thing but keep the review? Well, thanks. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit and it's always nice to hear that your work is good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its getting closer to B. I don't personally think the Modern Reviews header is needed. More images are not needed either unless its to illustrate something that can't be clearly conveyed by the text (don't want to get issues with excessive non-free). I'd get rid of the Rotten Tomatoes percent stuff. The reviews themselves are fine as long as they are from critics and not users. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, The Bibliography is there because the book is about Kon Ichikawa and quite a bit is on Fires on the Plain (film). Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Any chance it can be used as a source? :D Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Dekkappai has used it as a source. I'll ask him if it maybe contains some info on production. Hate to admit it but, as much of an Ichikawa fan as I am, I don't have it :(. Oh, I'll get to some of the sfuff you reccomended. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing a recent edit of yours, which stated that Imdb was not a accurate source, does that mean filmography isn't good there either? Oh, and on a completely different note, I'm aware there was a discussion about having a GA symbol. Do you know what I'm talking about? I can't remember what it was. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, IMDB can be used to look up the credits on a film (producer, director, etc), in liu of squinting to read the film credits. However, the film itself is still considered the source there, and if the film conflicts with IMDB, then the film is considered the accurate one. IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it is almost entirely user edited, and users can add/change almost anything in it, including the trivia, plot summaries, credits, awards, etc.

GA stands for Good Article. There are specific criteria for what qualifies as a good article, though the very short version is "just below featured article quality." A good article should be relatively well written, well sourced, comprehensive in coverage, well formatted, stable, and follow applicable guidelines regarding image usage. In order to be considered for a GA class, an article must be nominated as a "Good article candidate." It will be reviewed by another editor against the GA criteria and either passed (if it meets all requirements), put on hold (minor issues to fix), or failed (if it badly fails all the criteria). Collectonian (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about taking out the Jamie S. Rich rview. Somebody pointed out that the Reception section was overly long. As for that, she/he also noted that the same Jamie S. part was a pretty long quote and reccomended cutting it. Since it was also a dvd review, I figured it could still show some usefullness in the Availibilty section. Oh, and what I meant by the GA symbol was that editors were discussing a idea for making a symbol simmilar to the FA symbol that would be shown on the top right corner. Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh...I don't think it needs to be removed completely. Can just tighten up the prose some. Oh, yeah, the GA symbol discussion. Its already been archived, but it can be read at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11. Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

About me renaming reception distribution... that was a mistake. I made don't know how I such a big one :P. Oh, and I had a feeling I'd miss out on the GA symbol discussion. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, hey, we all have those moments ;) And trust me, you didn't miss much, and it will probably be back in another couple of months since it seems to be a regularly occurring argument LOL. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think it is an okay idea but some people have noted that it could bring competition. I'll admit I get excited every time I see that little star thing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Exile Edits

Thanks for all that wonderful work you did on the Last Exile page it is really improved. Keep up the good work. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray of Sunshine

		Ray of Sunshine Award
		You, User:Collectonian, are a Ray of Sunshine! You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess. I especially appreciate your helpful contributions to all Degrassi-related articles! Thanks again! - Keng - t | c - 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awww...thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I can help you with the wallflower chapter names. I put the rst in the talk page(but I didn't sighn in). Plz conact me if I can help. Thx.Mooncrest (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

re your comment on FAtalk, I'm reluctant to name names, since the ones I know are in the bird project, and I don't want to upset other contributors. Take a look at the bird featured lists and see what you think. I think most do not meet the criteria, especially in terms of referencing and mos, but I might be wrong Jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, many of those need to be reviewed, and delisted if they are not fixed. They need to be taken to FAR for referencing and formatting issues, though maybe start with a discussion in the project, since you're a member, on the need to clean them all up. Point out the new criteria (even if I think they suck, other people seem to think they are stronger), and note that the lists would probably fail an FLR. However, I also noticed you yourself supported keeping one such list as a featured list, even though it has the same problems. :( Its FLR did, at least, result in its lead referencing issues being fixed, though I personally feel it is still not adequately referenced. Collectonian (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Xena: Warrior Princess

In what way can I suggest the article Xena: Warrior Princess, to be one of the Featured Articles? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

It has to first actually be a featured quality article, which it is not, not by a long shot. Collectonian (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Escaflowne

"this does; it is not straight plot summary"

What are you talking about? There's no point of view in this section; it's just a description. That's plot content by definition. This sort of info doesn't need references unless there are interpretations or analysis, which it's not the case here. I understand if you like to source everything but it doesn't mean this actually needs references. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does need references. Its no different than a character list, which also requires referencing for each specific statement said about a character. Collectonian (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even when dealing with characters, only interpretations or analysis need to be referenced. Direct descriptions don't need references because there's no point of view, therefore there's nothing likely to be challenged. What do you think we use references for in the first place? Kazu-kun (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, direct descriptions to require references, as has been shown repeatedly in GAs, FAs, and in the FLs of character lists. Sure, we can leave them unreferenced if the article is going to be left low quality, but I want it taken to FA so it requires references.Collectonian (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not like that. When they ask for references in GAs or FAs it's because there's more than mere descriptions. Tell me, do you really know what references are for. I'm not asking in bad faith, I just think you may not fully understand what I'm talking about.Kazu-kun (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, wrong, I've been through all three and no, it isn't just for interpretative statements. Yes, I have an extremely clear understanding of what references are for. They verify the statements made in the article. Other than a simple plot summary, every statement in an article should be verifiable through clear, precise references. To me, the idea that "only things likely to be challenged" should be referenced is negligent, lazy, and presumes that the only people reading any of the articles will already be so familiar with the topic that they don't care. Making specific statements about characters (or settings) should be properly referenced to the specific episode and/or manga chapter/page where it is stated. Collectonian (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, that's your own opinion, which is irrelevant here. Even those two a three FAs don't reflect any concensus in comparison with the guideline. If you edit this way, based on your own opinion while disregarding the guideline, you could end up been pretty disruptive, even if your edits are in good faith. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not just my own opinion. It has been supported by numerous FAs, FLs, and GAs, and it does reflect the consensus among high class articles. Not just my own, but others I've participated in, including several anime and manga ones. There is nothing disruptive at all in holding articles I work on to the proper standards of Wikipedia. I'm not "disregarding the guideline" either, I'm upholding it far better than some people are willing to. And please stop speaking down to me as if I'm some newbie editor. I'm finding it a little insulting, particularly coming from an editor who is not any more experienced than I am and barely has even a quarter of the edits I do. Collectonian (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But you are inexperienced; you wouldn't use those nasty comments if you weren't. Anyway, the problem is your approach to this. You seem to believe that sourcing content that don't actually need sources is improving the article, but you're basing this on the fact that others editors (and yourself) think it's a good idea. You should take into account the guideline is the way it is because it was made with the purpose of solving specific problems, not because some editors thought it was a good idea. If it isn't more strict than it is, it's because of that reason, and so "upholding it far better", as you said, can sometimes be pretty disruptive. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not inexperienced, not by any stretch. And no, I didn't make any nasty comments. I expressed that I felt you were insulting me and looking down on me in very polite language considering that I was feeling insulted. Your editing history shows you have almost no experience in FAs, GAs, nor do you actively participate in the various pages for the policies and guidelines you're claiming I am somehow violating or ignoring or misinterpreting. I'm highly active in all of the above, so I'll stick to following what long term, heavily experienced editors state during such reviews. Your argument that its disruptive to somehow actually want an article to be well-sourced strikes me as far bigger sign of inexperience that anything you seem to think I've done. Go ask in verifiability if we're free to state anything we want without any sources so long as no one challenges it. Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced unless someone challenges it will be corrected. If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Perhaps then this strange and blatantly wrong idea you have that nothing needs to be sourced"

I thought it was clear I was talking about plot or character descriptions. Referencing is done for attribution, so any real-world statement must be sourced, of course. I wonder why you're twisting my words.

• "If it makes you feel better, though, my tagging that section as unreferenced is, in fact, someone challenging its accuracy and a demand for verification."

Wrong. Tagging an specific statement because you have a concern about it means you're challenging it. Tagging the whole thing just because you think it needs references, without specifing any real concern, is pretty meaningless. You're not challenging anything by doing that. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've already explained, very clearly, that character descriptions are not immune for referencing, nor are any other in-universe aspects that are not straight, simple plot summary. Making any specific statements about a character, a setting, etc should be sourced. If you don't wish to believe that, then I'm sorry, but it is strongly supported in numerous places. You are the one who mistakenly believes otherwise, and you view is not upheld by any actual evidence, only your own interpretation of something.

Tagging the whole section means I'm challenging the whole section as it has no references at all to support any of the statements and claims made about this locations within the series. It is the only section of the article that is now completely missing references that requires them. You'd rather I'd fill the section with a episode citation tag on every last sentence? That would just make the section ugly and bloated. You keep tossing around first part of WP:V to back up your idea, namely: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The very same policy notes clearly that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." I'm requesting sources for the unsourced statements of the section just as the policy recommends, since some people objected to it being removed.

Anyway, I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse over this. You are wrong, plain and simple, if you really think none of that needs citations. I know I am correct in saying they do need referencing based on my extensive experiences in the featured and GA arenas, in the delisting processes of those arenas, in policy and guideline board discussions, and in my interactions with other experienced editors who do have a firmer grasp of what verifiability means. Collectonian (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're describing what you saw about a character or setting in the work itself, without adding any king of interpretation, then that's also straight, simple plot summary. You're wrong because you're basing your argument in an incorrect concept. Well, it doesn't really matter actually, since I'll be re-writing the whole article soon. Just wanted to let you know that I think you have some misconceptions about sourcing and such. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, you are wrong and have yet to provide any actual evidence otherwise. As for rewriting the article, what do you mean you plan to rewrite it? I certainly hope you don't plan on undoing all of the extensive work that was done to clean it up and finally bring it in-line with the MoS, add much needed referencing, and real world info. It does not need rewriting at all. It need a brief character list added, the plot completed, and a reception section added. A few more refs and it will be ready for peer review on the road to GA. Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a cinematography student so I know exactly what a plot is. Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that. About the rewriting, it depends on the references available. When writing an article, I read all the reference available first an part from there. Maybe you're right and it doesn't need more than what you say it needs, but that depends on the sources. On the other hand, I don't know when I'll be working on it. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but being a cinematography student doesn't mean that "plot" equals what you say it does. Plot here is the plot summary in the main article and the individual episode and volume summaries in episode, chapter, and light novel lists. Writing descriptions of characters and settings about a work, even if its purely based on the media itself, is not plot. This has been shown time and time again. If you believe that pure character descriptives based only on the primary work do not need citations, then are you then saying that a character list requires no citations at all, except for where real-world or interpretative statements have been added? If so, again, I will tell you that it is incorrect. This is shown in the character lists taken to FL that have been hit for lacking citations on all statements. This has been shown in character article GA and FA noms where the plot summary for the character has required referencing. If you do not wish to believe me, okay. Take a look at Himura Kenshin (GA prepping for an FA run), Rukia Kuchiki (GA) and Orochimaru (Naruto) (GA). Note, the plot "summaries" are all sourced to specific chapters and episodes. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats - its not a fictional series, so perhaps you'll discount, but also note every last statement is sourced. During the FLC, several that had not been sourced were quickly pointed out for fixing or removing. If you don't believe me that such information needs sourcing, perhaps you'll consider asking an experienced editor you have some respect for? Perhaps User:Sephiroth BCR, who is one of our more prolific featured content producers. Or, again, ask in the featured areas or at WP:V or, if you like, we can ask a third/fourth opinion at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard.

As for editing the article, I'll just keep working on getting it ready for GA then. For referencing, I agree, the more the merrier, so long as they are reliable. Escaflowne is a key anime series, so I'm sure its been covered in even more sources than those I've found so far, and of course I haven't done anything with the reception section yet.Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, but I couldn't find anything supporting your ideas.

From Kenshin (I took a look at the archived peer review too):

• "Besides, both of those are just original research and unless some justified facts from the series or reliable source states (or implies) that he has either of these disorders, then let's not jump to conclusions."

Here they ask for references because stating that Kenshin suffers from some mental disorders is interpretative, not just a description.

Rukia:

• "and have all the relevant items properly sourced"

• "At this point, we can only assume that it is an ice elemental like Hitsugaya since there is no other reference point."

The first statement here is the only one I found on this talk page that seems in line with your ideas. The second is asking for references for clarification, which is not the same.

Orochimaru:

Didn't find anything on this talk page supporting your ideas.

You should realize a plot summary and a character description are the same thing: in both cases you're describing the action in the work's narrative. The only exception could be the physical appearance of the character, but if you've got a picture you don't need a reference for that either. Of course, all the plot summaries and descriptions in those articles are sourced, but let's be real, 90% of the content is in-universe, which has little encyclopedic value and therefore is referenced mostly for show (because without those references the articles would have little to nothing referenced).

Ultimately, this only show how most editors give too much importance to the in-universe content, relegating almost all the encyclopedic content to the Reception section. The result is subpar articles, which ironically are all GAs. This is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later. Articles don't need the in-universe content to be referenced, they need more real-world content mixed in every section, even in the Plot. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the articles support my ideas perfectly because the articles themselves HAVE the references. If the references were unnecessary, they wouldn't be there. But oh well, I tried. Continue believing such things do not need referencing. Perhaps if you ever try to take an article to featured status or good article status without it, then you'll actually be willing to learn something. So, the concept and creation sections of those articles are also just "in-universe"? As for "this is what happens when you write an article first and look for references later" I'm just going to shake my head. You sound as if editors always have a choice in this. Most don't, unless thye only work from brand new articles. Many articles have already been created. You deal with what you've got and work to bring it up to standards. If you have the luxury of starting from scratch, great, but you can't just discount every other editor's work and start all over from scratch. You don't just come in and wipe out the entire article in one fell swoop because you think you wrote something better because you think you did it the proper way. As for those articles being subpar...well, go send them all to GAR if you think so. I do it all the time. For the ones I suggested viewing, though, I suspect you'll fine that others do not agree with your assessment.

Anyway, I wash my hands of this conversation. Suffice to say, I think the section should stay tagged until it is sourced, unless you can actually find consensus or proof that your idea is somehow right, despite the overwhelming evidence shown by GAs and FAs that its not. I've asked an uninvolved party (the admin I mentioned earlier) to look at this issue and offer a third opinion, to help clear this up, in keeping with the proper dispute resolution process. I hope you'll be willing to respect what they say, no matter which side (if any) they fall on. Collectonian (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, you source everything, whether it is plot summary, in-universe, or whatever. Any content you include has to be verifiable, and you should show as such via sources. It's not a big deal. Cite the relevant chapter/anime episode/etc. where the content is from. The practice of not sourcing plot summary has fallen through as of late, and there have been GARs and FARCs to show for that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you removed the Naruto media list article...

If you removed the list of Naruto media article, then how will we know what Opening themes and Closing Themes they've used, and in which episodes?
And how will we know the names of the soundtracks and OSTs, especially the singles for the Opening and Closing Themes?
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008(EDT)

Opening and ending themes are covered in the episode lists. We are not a CD listing/sales catalog. The soundtracks and OSTs are listed in the main article's soundtrack section. CD singles are not something we list as they are specific to the artist not the series. Collectonian (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you.

~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008(EDT)

Yo

You can delete the f-ing article on the f-ing series, too, if you f-ing want to. I mean, it's just an un-notable series based on some un-notable books no f-er's ever heard about it, so what the f are you doing keeping it f-ing there? Don't mind that I spent an entire f-ing week reading/writind information for these articles? Who f-ing cares about that when your uncultured self doesn't recognize one thing from another? Ciao. T.W. (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)