User talk:AnmaFinotera

I prefer to comments made here on this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, flame baiting, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear 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)?

Could you lend me a hand with a new article?

I'm working on an article for the webcomic 9th Elsewhere, but I'm a little stumped. The article I wrote was speedied for WP:CSD#A7 and WP:WEB as it had been AfD'd for the same reason. I tried to fix the problem, but I'm not sure it will be enough to keep the article. I was wondering if you could take a look over what I've got and give me some pointers? My working copy is here if you're interested. I'll be out of town for the next week, so I'm in no rush for an answer. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the big thing I think would be to find some other assertions of notability and other reliable sources. I think the awards may be enough, but more RS wouldn't hurt. While the comic itself is fine for the character and plot info, and some of the basic history of the series, other RS's discussing it help further establish notability. With web comics, the additional challenge is that they aren't like print ones that may be syndicated in thousands of paper, so finding neutral sources will be harder. You may want to cut back on the character section some as it dominates the article. Try to focus on the more real world notability first, including reception (reviews, awards, etc), history, impact, etc. It looks like they are doing a book compilation, so that should also be mentioned if you can get more info on it. The Comic series MOS might have some useful tips for organization and formatting]]. Maybe see if there are any GA or B web comic articles to study as well?

For some other suggestions. I'd probably not have quite so many links to the site (have one in the info box, so need need for one in the intro or ELs). Also, if a reference is used more than once, don't forget to use a named ref so you don't have it repeating in the reference list. :)

Here is one review link I found that might help some for the receiption section: [1].

Hope that helps some, Collectonian (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Vision of Escaflowne page

Define "excessive"; if you cannot, then I urge you to put the non-free images back. Not only is four nowhere near excessive, but there are featured articles with far more than four images - all of them being non-free. Just because an image is not "free" does not mean it can't be used. If they enhance the page (and they do), then they should be used within the rules. -Biokinetica (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read the WP:NFCC policy and the several discussions on the talk page. The removals were done at the requirement of policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's rules (which trump all policies and guidelines and consensus). There are, in fact, now mass removals of ALL free images occurring in articles due to there being far too many on a single page. I pro-actively removed the excessive ones to keep the article from losing them all. The Non-free image policy is very clear on minimal usage. The Vision of Escaflowne page had too many. The individual character images on the character list will be replaced with more appropriate group images. Collectonian (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That talk page isn't helping. It's the same war-zone it's always been, and once again, nothing has been resolved. Yes, we all want group images, but the reason they aren't there is because no one has any provided by the copyright holder that are acceptable for an encyclopedia or this article's specific needs. We're not always blessed with beautiful widescreen images such as this one. If group images are available for animé character lists, then they are used. If they're not available, then the most common action is to resort to individual images. This isn't done to spite deletionists, it's done because there's no other means of primary identification of the important characters. The line about exemptions to the rule is there for just such an occasion; there is no group montage, but this article needs to identify the characters you removed. Part of this has to do with significance, as the images you deleted were of very important characters. -Biokinetica (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of group images available for Escaflowne, so that isn't really a valid argument in the case of Escaflowne. No one having uploaded the images yet does not automatically given an exception for individual character images. Rather it means the article has none until someone does the necessary uploading. New images will be put in the article that comply with NFCC as part of the over all clean up of the Escaflowne articles that is currently underway, work that will bring the article up to B class or higher and hopefully result in at least one of the lists getting featured status. I started with the main article first, however, as it is the most crucial aspect. When its good, then I will work on the episode and character lists. Collectonian (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said one had to be uploaded in order for it to merely exist. And you can't 'invalidate' an argument with a statement you can't back. People (including I, personally) have looked all over the place for suitable (not just any piece of internet trash) group images of these characters. If you're so certain that you've found something no one else has, then produce it instead of making up fables of it's existance. There's no screenshot of them all happily crowded around the camp fire, so I know that's not it. The only other option would be promotional images, which are scarce, and too low quality to serve their intended purpose within this article. And all the images can technically "comply" with NFCC, the only distinction is in how they're used. It's already known that you're going to try to follow the rules, the question posed is of your interpretation. -Biokinetica (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will created the images when I rewatch the series and get them from the DVDs. There are group images that can be used to keep the article down to just a few images rather than individual images for every character. I've watched the series enough times to know that, hence my assertion there are. I plan to do that as soon as I'm done rewatching Wolf's Rain and finishing up its episode summaries. I don't think the article is suffering all that much from not having images for a short time, other lists never have images and the list as a whole has bigger issues that need taken care or. If you really think its somehow a bad article just because it has no images, go ahead and put them back if you want. .I'll just remove them later when I do have the group images ready, presuming the rule enforcers don't do strip them all back out first. Collectonian (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean screenshots of a couple of characters who just happen to be in the same frame? That's not too different from individual images, and that solution usually turns up mediocre visuals that hurt the article anyway. When people say "group image" they're referring to something like this. That one's actually not bad, but I have a gripe with the five in the corner, as they aren't 'left-to-right list'-friendly. You can't "point" to them without taking out photoshop and litterally doing so. And when this argument is had doesn't really matter. No one is in any sort of urgency, I've just seen to many articles get "revamped" by people who can't deal with images for their lives. They usually end up knocking the format off balance or forcing it into something complicated, yet insist it's for the better of the page. -Biokinetica (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, that image wouldn't be very good. And yes, when I say group shot, I mean screenshots that have multiple characters on the screen or official/promotional images with multiple characters. Whiel it may seem like its not any different from individual images, those kinds of group shots are allowed because it lets multiple characters be covered with one image, thus reducing the number of NF images and bringing the page into compliance. If it helps anyway, take a look at List of Blood+ characters. That is one that I and some other editors have already cleaned up a lot to bring into compliance using group shots, all taken from the series itself. Before it also had an image for every character. The only minorly annoying is the shot of Diva's Chevaliers because James' back is to the viewer, but it is much better than it was and it meets the compliance requirements even with the two individual images remaining. List of Trinity Blood characters is another one that has also had many individual images replaced with group images, though its still a work in progress because we have editors on that one, and I don't have the DVDs yet to get the shots myself. :P Collectonian (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Great debate, so you are saying that it would be much better to gather images (screen dumps) of the selected article using DVD screen dumps as long as you personally own the collection, this will somewhat reduce the copy right infringement of the image, am i correct? Still this debate makes a dull day brighten up a little :). mickyfitz13 ^Talk 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. :P Anyone can do a screen shot from a DVD collection. It's actually where most of individual character images tend to come from. It is still a screenshot and they would still be non-free images that require the appropriate fair use rationale and fall under the NFCC. The main difference is that having access to the DVD makes it easier for me (or any other editor) to get good images for articles, as they can easily do a perfect frame capture from any episode. Often times, images that are found on fan sites or the like have been cropped, edited into a wallpaper, or are just plain low quality. ;) In the case of cropping or editing, they really shouldn't be used as that makes them a derivative work which violates the copyright. So having access to the DVD also makes it easier to be able to say: yes, this is the unaltered copyrighted image from X source. :) Collectonian (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly true; most screenshots are actual screenshots taken from raws and fansub releases (as many animé articles are written in real time along with the series' airing), often being of considerable quality. -Biokinetica (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the series. Some series, yeah, you can find decent quality screenshots on other sites, while others are a little harder (especially older, less popular, or unlicensed series) :) Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "other sites"? People take the screenshots themselves with fraps. Most fansubs are DVD quality, and end up looking no different than screenshots from an actual DVD. -Biokinetica (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, mean on some sites :P I don't agree on the fansubs being DVD quality, though. They are far from in 99% of the cases. Good enough for viewing but not nearly as clear or crisp an image because they have to be compressed enough that people would want to download. DVD quality would require huge download times and massive file sizes :P Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true. They use the same codecs DVD publishers use, sometimes better. DVD9 doesn't support H264, when just about every current subber does. That in itself makes the fansub superior to the DVD. Even the resolution of the DVD is inferior: 720x480 for NTSC, 720x576 for PAL. I have fansubs at 1280x720 (720p). Fansubs now are coming in standards that equate to High Definiton. And file-size is never an issue, as torrents are easily capable 400+ mb/s upon a new release, those releases rarely breaking 250mb. This usually takes the shape of a download that's less than 10 minutes. But good luck on the article. -Biokinetica (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I used to work with fansub groups so I know they are below DVD standards. Fansubs are not superior to DVD, they are inferior. Collectonian (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Markstein's Toonopedia

Hi. I removed your speedy deletion tag. This site is notable -- see my [Don Markstein's Toonopedia|earlier comments on the talk page]]. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure it meets the WP:WEB notability requirements, however I think at minimum it should stay tagged for notability until someone actually makes the effort to assert it, so I've put that back. Collectonian (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check the Google News link I previously left on the talk page. Also, you should understand that Editor & Publisher is a leading magazine -- that ref alone establishes notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the link. Only a few seemed usable and they have not been used. A single link does not establish notability on its own, the article must clearly establish it and that one does not. Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was good?

Dia dhuit. So nothing was wrong with mo edits? They just did nach want it on the site?

Correct. There was nothing wrong with your edits, its just individual movie characters do not generally need their own articles. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted (film)

Hi. I was wondering which sections of Enchanted (film) you think need the attention of a film expert. The only technical aspect of the article is the Production section, particularly, the section on the aspect ratios. The other sections have information that is supported by relevant sources. Regards, Ladida (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert attention doesn't necessary refer to a need for sources. The article needs expert attention from the project to bring it in-line with the Film MOS. Collectonian (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I thought we require expert attention when we need expert opinions on a technical matter. Articles in the scientific field like Chemistry or Mathematics require expert attention when the information is technical and the sources contradict each other. If all the article needs is to be brought in-line with the Film MOS then can't we do that ourselves? I am not objecting your suggestion for expert attention if it improves the article but it's just that you didn't provide a reason for adding the tag (unless I missed it then I apologise). The article in its current form does follow the Film MoS. I just wanted to know what aspects of the article you feel needs expert attention so I can help improve it or ask the administrators for their opinions on the format of the article. Regards, Ladida (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is its primary purpose, though it can also be used to refer to a big need for cleanup/restructuring per the MOS, deal with excessive in-universe issues, etc. things someone experienced in the project would know how to fix. And yes, you can do it yourself if you want. It would probably be helpful if we could just tag for MOS issues, but there isn't one for it that I know of specifically for film (might be something the project needs to do, as video games does have a tag more specific for that). For now, I've removed the tag and replaced it with something closer in meaning to what I was trying to point out.

The article does not quite follow the MOS. Some specific things that need to be reformatted or restructured: character list (table is not a good option here), soundtrack listing (needs to be put in regular soundtrack format and any appropriate, sourced information from notes incorporated above or below the list), the Promotion section is unneeded as there was nothing unique or particularly notable about the promotion for the movie, awards section needs to go to prose, and the official references belongs under either plot or production details along with the cameo appearances. Collectonian (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)