Wikipedia

Talk:List of Air episodes/Archive 2

< Talk:List of Air episodes
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Juhachi in topic Merge with main article?
Archive 1Archive 2

Straw poll for which episode table to use

Latest comment: 18 years ago60 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 80% for using an WP:LOE maintained template, 20% for using Cool Cat's original template. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's come to this. We all know why polls are evil, but seeing as how Cool Cat is not open to discussion or forming a consesnous I feel this is the best way to quickly resolve this matter. The messages on this talk page as well as on Talk:Air (series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Air dispute, pretty much give you an idea of the dispute between Cool Cat and I. In a nutshell, I think the list, as well as most lists of this nature, should use WikiProject List of Television Episodes's style guidelines and it's episode template, Template:Japanese episode list. This style can be seen on 3 of the 6 Featured lists about episodes. Cool Cat wishes to use his OMG inspired style and template, Template:List of Anime Ep TV. This style is also seen on 3 of the 6 Featured lists about episodes.

Examples

WP:LOE's style and Japanese episode template

  1. Support, I not only think this looks better, but I think it's easier to read. I'll repeat some of my reasonings from my past comments, "WP:LOE's template itself is used in over 20 articles already (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list (no image)), and has been very well received so far. Meanwhile, the OMG inspired/Cool Cat episode template has some objections (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2006#List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, Talk:List of Naruto episodes#Reorganisation, User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Air). WP's LOE episode templates are easy to use, with clearly marked parameters. The template also makes use of individual episode screenshots seen on most lists of episodes." Also, style layout is not a factor for Featured lists (although I think it should be). Featured list status seems to be the only pro-argument I can see for the other template and style. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: I think it goes along better with the page and is more compact and thus easier to scan the page. It's not always about the eye candy since this is an encyclopedia after all and thus shouldn't the information about the actual episodes be more important than the way they are displayed? That being said, I'd say just stick with the current standard format using the Japanese episode template. Besides, I already hate how warped this discussion and article have gotten.--Juhachi 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Looking strictly from the standpoint of someone who may edit this article in the future, using one of the WP:LOE templates would be easier to understand and edit. I also don't buy Cool Cat's argument that this list won't be able to achieve Featured list status by using one of the templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I never gave such an argument. My argument is that TV scren shots are bad and DVD covers should be used instead. This is what the whole thing is about. --Cat out 12:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    You may not have directly stated it, but your arguments clearly imply it. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Do not imply things from my statements. I despise that... --Cat out 13:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see why you can't use the DVD covers as the episode screenshots? Or use one table for the DVDs and then use (or don't use) screenshots for the episodes in a different table ala List of South Park episodes.--Will2k 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well. for one I really really am tired of the changing concensus. Few months ago people almost crucified me for using episode screenshots on lists, now I get crucified for using DVD covers. --Cat out 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I've switched the Excel Saga episode list from the OMG format to the LOE-Japanese template. I have issues with how the template gives pride of place to unofficial romaji titles and how the official Japanese titles are a little small, but its aesthetic value outweighs those concerns.--Monocrat 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Err.. The POINT of romaji is that english speaking people are able to read it. The template as is does NOT give pride to anything. How the heck can it gove pride? --Cat out 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    "Giving pride of place" means, loosely, giving priority. I understand the point of romaji titles, so please don't lecture me. Perhaps my comments were ambiguous, but when I refered to "template," I meant that what I would like from the LOE-Japanese template is that the official titles used in Japan (in whatever script or language) be listed before unofficial transliterations provided for anglophones' benefit.--Monocrat 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not think I was lecturing. On my version of the template, kanji is given priority on the proposed version its at the second line and is ambigious. It may very well be kana. My version clearly identifies it. I frankly am not certan of the issue here, both templates present the same amount of information only its just that my version presents it in a more organised manner which you consider bad... --Cat out 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support but... I was shocked to see these two side by side and realize how very little difference there is. With this conflict escalating to the point of a vote, I was expecting something drastically different. In the past I have commented that I like the OMG style list, and was rather confused when I clicked the first link to find... it looks exactly the same? So after comparing it turns out it doesn't, but it is very, very close. So on that note, I would say I prefer this style by a very, very small amount. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    It came to a vote because one person's work will be wiped out.--Will2k 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    The "drastic difference" is in the underlying markup of the list and is what is in dispute. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    That no longer is the case though, the markup has been made identical. --Cat out 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    That, the chunky looking borders, and positions of the romaji and kanji and such. -- Ned Scott 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    The "chunky" looking borders are good enough to make it through FAC. positions of the romaji and kanji are easy to follow and organised unle your version. A straw poll and hours of discussion just for how a table looks should be a first on wikipedia. --Cat out 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    ill-relevant, the borders were not a factor in the Featured list candidacy. If one wishes to make it clearer about what titles are what, they could do this or what's used in List of Digimon Adventure episodes, etc. Not all data should be given columns. Note the transition of writer and director notes on Talk:List of Sex and the City episodes. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    So we are talking about minor diferences now, since original argument of easy use is no longer relevant.
    The table header is irrelevant to this poll. We can use either one regardless of the outcome, both tables headers would work. I actualy do not like thick borders all that much either but any other style I tried does not work well on firefox. I welcome alternatives but so far I have not seen any.
    Not all data should be presented in columns, but episode names should. It is much more easier to follow it. I do not see the relevance of List of Sex and the City episodes to this topic.
    --Cat out 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per TheFarix's example as my concerns were addressed. Now that the tables are basically the same, I vote for this because this one just looks so much better. _dk 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. The Japanese version looks better and is compatible with WP:LOE and thus better maintainable in the future. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. As above. --Kunzite 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's List of Anime Ep TV style and template

  • Support, I think this one looks better, especially with Air's beautiful DVD covers....but that's beside the point. I'm still concerned about image cluttering, and I don't think an image for every episode is necessary. And precedence is not an issue here. _dk 05:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote. _dk 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The style I recommend also has a no image format (Template:Japanese episode list (no image)), and the DVD covers can be placed on their own little table above, like what is done in many lists. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An example of what this page would look like using {{Japanese episode list (no image)}} --TheFarix (Talk) 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Which also clearly shows the unnecesary amout of whitespace. (2 lines of them). On Naruto list people were complaining about one extra line (which is temporarily blank). Large tables break wikitable on firefox borwser. On your example several of the verticle vertical lines are missing. That fails to meet a featured list criteria IIRC. --Cat out 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Firefox's bugs are apart of the criteria? I think not. I've looked at the list under Firefox, it doesn't break. -- Ned Scott 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussed below as I am sure you know. :) --Cat out 07:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. I'd like to note I oppose the exitance of this poll. Don't vote for everything. Having said that here are my rationale:
    1. The TV screen shots of individual episodes are really not the right way. If you look at the various star Trek lists for instance, you will see that most of the screencaps are unintelligable. At best, you can tell there is a peson or a ship but it isnt any more significant. Furthermore LEGALLY speaking, I am not sure we can claim fair-use on episode screenshots used like this. DVD covers on the other hand are from amazon.com and are promotional by nature. It is less likely for companies to complain.
    2. Both of the LOE templates make heavy use of meta temlates. Meta templates should be avoided if they are not making peoples and/or coders life any easier. My version (as of now) has a similar usage (same parameters) while using less code. I intend to overide the Template:List of Anime Ep TV as soon as this page is unlocked.
    --Cat out 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    2 Points of contention:
    1. Both you and Ned Scott have personal attachments to your respective templates. As such, neither of your two opinions should contribute to the final decision on account of bias. I have personal attachments to the LOE template and the wikiproject it's associated with as well. This is why I am not contributing a support for either.
    2. Featured lists are (or at least should be) determined based on content and not layout. Any discussions on what is featured and what is not should have no bearing on which template was/is used.--Will2k 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with that assesment and have modified my argument accordingly, However I think it is safe to conclude that neither markup "sucks" as both have been used in featured lists. Fearued lists are "the best wikipedia has to offer". --Cat out 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Both of the LOE templates make heavy use of meta temlates. This isn't true, neither of the WP:LOE templates use meta-templates. Yours, on the other hand, uses one (1). --TheFarix (Talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    [1] I count a serious amount of if/else statements there, what are you talking about? --Cat out 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    There's a huge difference between ParserFunctions and meta-tempaltes. The former is much easier on the servers then the latter. But your new template really is nothing more then a fork of the WP:LOE template. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I see no evidence of a fork, but since you have a predetermined opinion I wont discuss this any further with you. --Cat out 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: My major reason for supporting this format is that the seperation between English, kanji, and romaji titles is much more clear and is better. Also though, the reason that anime episode lists are more able to use DVD covers instead of American TV series is because anime is commonly only released a couple of episodes per DVD. With American shows, you have them released as complete seasons, so it's much harder to use a DVD cover image as 24 epiodes might be using the same cover. --SeizureDog 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please post a list of links to these lists and indicate which lists use which template. This will make it easier to do a comparison between them. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For the featured lists? For the WP:LOE style, List of South Park episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes. For the OMG/Cool Cat style, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, List of Planetes episodes, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. For examples one can use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:List of Anime Ep TV. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems the Cool Cat template got renamed Template:List of Anime Episodes TV, and examples Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:List of Anime Episodes TV. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Last night, I placed a notification over at Wikipedia:Current surveys. This should help bring more attention to this straw poll beyond the partys involved. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, it seems that the only real difference between the two templates is the placement of the episode number, and the placement of the romaji and kanji/kana titles. Outside of that, they are pretty much the same. Perhaps one (Cool Cat's) could be used for lists using the DVD cover shots, and the other could be used for episode lists with screenshots for each episode? Cool Cat's seems to be designed more for using the DVD cover with multiple episodes (or that's what it's mostly been used for, anyway). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is also about the format of using DVD covers on the side vs no images or individual screenshots, as well as the THICK lines. DVD covers only help identify an episode if you own the DVD.. Also, the Japanese episode list template is in the care of WP:LOE, where I believe suggestions, changes, and growth will be more welcome, considering Cool Cat's reactions to people "editing his work". -- Ned Scott 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that should be part of this poll. Basic format should be decided first, and then we can worry about DVD covers vs. episode screenshots, IMHO. As it is, I prefer elements found in both, and think a hybrid would be fine. I used the FMA episode list as the basis for creating the List of Highschool! Kimen-gumi episodes page, though I didn't use any templates as I didn't know about all of them at the time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Although, if the straw poll fails, I wouldn't object to TheFarix's compromise format being used. I made the same suggestion on the 9th, during List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes's Featured list candidacy, as shown here. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As my example shows, the WP:LOE templates are adaptable with some minor tweaking of the templates. But that should be part of the evolution of the WP:LOE templates as new demands come up. But instead of working within the existing templates and help improve them, Cool Out fights them outright and has now resorted to creating his own replacement. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
So it is completely unnaceptable to use my format? Also please dont talk about me in 3rd person on the thread I am involved. I do not mind people editing my work. It has been done before. See history of Oh My Goddess!. Note how many edits preceed mine. --Cat out 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
When all you ended up doing is just reinvent the wheel, yes. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The wheel (my template) predates the LOE one. I merely modifed it to be compatible with LOE as a gesture of good faith and as a comprimise. Not a whole lot of good faith is leaking from you with that comment. --Cat out 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ned the thick lines are not my favorite peice of work nor do they bother me as much as they bother you (I just dont care either way) but any border with less than 5px thickness breaks on firefox. Find a way to fix that and I will live with that. The only fix I currently know is thick borders. --Cat out 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't true. I frequently see (and have created) wikitables with borders of 1px, and they appear fine in Firefox on both Mac OS X and Windows XP SP2. Perhaps you have a corrupted version of Firefox. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Same here, works great on Firefox 1.0.5.4 and Safari 2.0.3 on Mac OS 10.4.6. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true. A strange bug that can be resolved with a reinstaling firefox. We both are right. --Cat out 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen that before too and it just seems to be flaky in firefox (comes and goes). I wonder if enforcing a border (say border: 1px solid black !important;) would help?--Will2k 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My belief is "border colapse" was/is one of the things firefox doesn't like. This may be a mediawiki bug as well. After all the css send to firefox is different from ie IIRC. --Cat out 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template idea

This was something that was considered for the forerunner of Template:Japanese episode list, Template:Digimon episode. It seemed... pointless. One thing I don't want to do is needlessly hide wikicode. The table header really only would need to be written once, while episode entries could easily be added and reworded many many times. So really, only episode entries, which will get much more editing traffic, need the simple "interface" as well as being able to easily convert/ update/ change formats in the future without having to do a lot of editing on the episode entry level. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
We could give it optional parameters. It wouldn't save time since we would copy paste anyways... But code would be less misterious to a newbie. I particularly do not care either way. --Cat out 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table issue

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
 
screen cap of issue

I think the table issue must be adressed independantly from the poll (which now became rather pointless IMHO). Same thing that happens to sex and the city list happens to air lists. That is the only reason why I insist on thick borders. --Cat out 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, this looks fine under Firefox on both Mac and Windows (I asked some friends via IRC to look at it). You need to reinstall your browser or something, because that's not normal. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have checked it on 5 computers, 2 of them my own. I get the same result. I am using the latest version of firefox. It just is not working, which is a problem. --Cat out 06:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What are the odds of 5 computers having same corrupt version... Apperantly you were correct. I can happily sacrifice the ugly thick borders as well. So we are now voting on where the episode numbers, kanji, and romanji appear only. --Cat out 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I can also comfirm and refute the formatting problems with the tables with Firefox 1.5.0.4. On one of my machines it renders correctly everytime. But on the other it renders incorrectly everytime. The biggest thing I noticed is that it renders incorrectly in different locations when I reload. On the machine not rendering correctly, I used a new profile and that seems to have corrected it. -- Pedantic79 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea it is a very wierd issue. I have reinstalled firefox from scratch. When I hit the save button the tables are screwed up however when I revisit they start working again. I am not exactly certain what causes the issue but many others should be experiencing it. However need of the many outway the few <vulcan salute> --Cat out 06:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Separator line still seems a bit too thick. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that it's that horrible, but, eh. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I kept it at a solid 5 pixels, it is easy to make it smaller but 5 pixels isn't much... If you desire you can edit the template and make it thiner. Though please dont go below 2 pixels ;) --Cat out 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a problem thay may occur on any long table in wikipedia. The precise problem lay with the user agent, not the styling. Circeus 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User agent on firefox? Is there a way to fix it? I am really interested. Perhaps a FAQ should exist in wikipedia namespace for this bug. --Cat out 20:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only guaranteed solution is to split the table. Using wider borders also work, but that is just as ugly. Complex tables with larger number of col/rowspan are much more prone to this, too, so there might be investigation to do there. Circeus 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Spliting the table is an overkill. Wider borders is what I was doing in the past. Perhaps this should be reported to mozzila. I am not sure what to report though. --Cat out 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
We could just pester mozzila. --Cat out 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ownership of article?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this edit and the edit summary of "restored text for summary section. Since no other wikipedia editor aside from myself is writing the summaries, I am not interested in the what if scenerio."

I should not have to tell you what is obviously wrong there. Cool Cat has been repeatedly warned about his borderline ownership issues with these articles. Shortly after the article was unprotected, dispute consensus, Cool Cat injected his new templates. I could go on and on, but I think other editors who are familiar with this dispute already know what I'm talking about. If not, here's some other examples of comments he's made:

From Talk:Air (series)#Character articles:

"Please save me the lecture... There is a limit on how much I tolerate interference with articles I have been involved with. So far you have interfered with most of my activities regarding Air series and I'd like to note I have been involved for quite some time."

From User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Vote change - Air list thing.:

"I do not like this idea of a "concensus". After all, I am the person writing the article. I should be free to choose any style I wish, asuming it is legable/workable.

Wikiprojects cannot and should not dictate what I can and cannot do and I feel this is what it is about."

From User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Wikipedia Guidelines:

"This whole thing is pretty silly, I know but it is not a content dispute. Ned just want the articles to appear exactly how he wants them. He does not contribute to the articles much. Prior to june he had no contribution to air at all."

This issue has really gotten out of hand, and I think a RFC is in order for Cool Cat. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

... I refrain from commenting. I will cite WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues --Cat out 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
80% went for the LOE template. Also "substantial reason for the change" was also given, and even discussed in great detail, for most, if not all of the disputes with Cool Cat.
As for the current reason the page is protected, he clearly violated Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, without any good reason for such a statement to be excused from a perfectly good and applicable guideline. I was the second editor to point this out to him. And even without that, the statement is made in bad taste, as it assumes that Cool Cat is going to be the only editor of the summaries. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No. Because the page is protected no one will be writing the summaries. Please do not complain about my behaviour when you are revert waring over the style. The straw poll is just ridiclous and I claim the voting was rigged to a degree... --Cat out 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
you... you claim the voting was rigged.... I don't even have words left, man. You just don't get it, do you. -- Ned Scott 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I get a great deal of displesure from this senseless debate about style... The claim was a figure of speech. Have you actualy read Wikipedia: Straw polls --Cat out 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
 
Page protected

I have protected this article from editing until the editing disputes can be sorted out on here, and everyone is prepared to edit collaboratively on this article. It's not that difficult, people. - Mark 06:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In all reality, this is such a minor anime that I really shouldn't care, and my quick reactions are probably not helping. However, I don't think ignoring issues for the sake of making Cool Cat happy is the right thing to do. I think it's pretty clear from this talk page that Cool Cat is interested in only doing things his way, and only considered the input from others when he was under the threat of the above straw poll. I am considering a RfC on Cool Cat, but I've never participated in a RfC, let alone initiated one. If anyone has any.. advice or would like to help, it'd be greatly appreciated. Even after all this he doesn't show any improvement, I don't think there's another way to resolve these disputes. Also, it appears that this is not the first time someone has had to take such action, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That arbitration case was filed against davenbelle and sterotek and had nothing to do with anime or with lists. It was filed roughly a year ago. your point? --Cat out 07:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That with you, sometimes extreme measures are necessary. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
People stalking have been blocked indefinately in the past (most notably User:The Recycling Troll, blocked by Jimbo Wales himself). This is covered under Wikipedia:Harassment which that very arbitration case you cited has infact shaped. I strongly discourage you from engage in such behaviour. --Cat out 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor cannot be blocked for starting a RfC... And this is clearly not harassment... You feel this is a threat from me, so you try to threaten me? I'm looking at all the things required for RfC, and dang, there's a heck of a lot of stuff I got to pull together to even file this. If I wanted to threaten you I'd have chosen something easy. RfC is when you want to resolve an issue and you've clearly run out of options. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The "extreme measures" (Stalking I presumed) is a blockable offense. You are free and welcome to file an RfC. I'd however recommend speding time on something that is actualy usefull. --Cat out 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
...Stalking? ..... what?........ What stalking? I never suggested stalking, I meant that filing an RfC was an extreme measure because it takes a lot of work! In no way was I advocating the actions of stalking! good grief. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. Because my arbitration case was strictly about stalking and I do not see any way it can apply to this articles issue. Filing an rfc is a great amount of work, you also have to get it approved providing steps of Wikipedia:dispute resolution you have taken in the manner they have been described. I still recomend spending your time on something much more productive. --Cat out 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cool out, your comments are crossing into the realm of pure vanity now. Not only are you continue to insisting that your template be used over the LOE template even though the LOE template reached a high enough threshold to be considered the consensus, but now you are claiming that the straw poll was "rigged" and should be made invalid without providing any evidence of vote rigging.

You have also made the claim that since you are the principle contributor to the list, that your preferences should be used over the preferences outlined by the straw poll's results. Statements such as those gives everyone else a strong impression that you think you own the list as a result and therefore have complete control over its continents and structure.

Now let me ask one simple question. Is there a reason not to use a template that is being maintained by a wikiproject and addresses most of the concerns express in the debate and straw poll beyond things that are superficial? --TheFarix (Talk) 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there a reason why not to use my template? Since as you point out, the diference is superficial. The straw poll is currently about where the kanji, romaji, and episode numbers appear. Infact I do not exactly see the point of this insistance on the LOE template.
Define "maintained". I did not know templates required maintanance. They just sit there... sometimes additional parameters are added, but that doesn't require a wikiproject.
Furthermore the staw poll was inaproporate in first place. Not only was it conducted inproperly but also its purpose was not about the content of the article.
--Cat out 15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A temporary resolution

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

To be honest, I'm tired of seeing this series of arguments drag on. It's pointless and you're not going to reach a consensus ever at this rate, so this article will become perennially locked from editting. Why don't you just drop the argument for the moment, go finish up the article, and then come back to argue about the finer points? There is no point in trying to reach consensus now since someone always object to it, and nothing is gained if things continue like this.

So how about it? Let's say we request that the article to be unprotected, go fill in the article (but NOT mess around with the template or removing the movie entry, because I don't want to go through this again), and when everything else is done, concerned parties can continue with their drama. Sounds like a good plan? _dk 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am doing that in my userspace. See: User:Cool Cat/List of Air episodes I will complete it soon, I welcome any assistance. (currently takinng a wiki-vacation). An unprotection is unnecesary. --Cat out 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but to many users have had similar problems with Cool Cat for me to just let this go and let him have "his way". There's over-flowing examples of his bad editing behavior, and to just ignore this issue because he's being a pain is the kind of thing that is harmful to wikipedia. Maybe if this wasn't an article that I was interested in personally in editing, then I might be able to let it go. Cool Cat continues his attempts to force his way and not work with others time and time again. This is ridicules that I have to stand here and argue very basic things simple because he chooses to ignore logic. The more I interact with him the more I find this out. I'd like to point out the comments on the following pages to support my words: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (01), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (02), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (03), m:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat 1, m:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat 2, in addition to the above comments and quotes I pointed out as well. -- Ned Scott 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And, incase it's not obvious, even though this is not an RfA those comments still refer to Cool Cat's editing attitudes and outline major disputes and disruptions involving him. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking more along the lines of including a wikilink to the movie in the See also section, but not actually include a description of the movie among the list of episodes. That's because the movie is an alternative telling of the same story instead of a prequel or sequel of the TV story line, like how the FMA movie is a sequal of to TV series. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm just saying we should delay this arguement for later, this is not an endorsement for Cool Cat's behaviour. We can drop this for the moment or we can file a RFC, but pointlessly argueing on this page does no good since a consensus is never going to be reached. _dk 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting the list look right

Latest comment: 18 years ago48 comments8 people in discussion

The newest edits are effects of my discussions with Cool Cat. Anyway, I think that:

  • Episode screenshots are much more useful than DVD covers.
  • Title should be a bit bigger (like style="font-size: 120%;") than the main body.
  • One-line titles in big font are a lot better user interface than two-line in small font.

Taw 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

About the images, personally I'm just waiting to see if we're allowed to use any images before going back to that dispute (although I do agree with you). (see Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists). I still don't think that all the titles on one line is a good thing, but since you are a second opinion to Cool Cat, then in all fairness I'll bring it up with WP:LOE and WP:ANIME and get some stronger input on it. As for the titles being bigger.. not sure about that.. LOE's templates have already started to use color shading for the title row to help it stand out, as well as bold lettering. Again, something to bring up with WP:LOE. Thanks for the input. -- Ned Scott 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess this is the results of your suggestions, taw: List of Planetes episodes. I gotta say, the big font size looks ugly as hell. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I can't believe I didn't notice you guys were also editing THIS aritcle. ok NO, see the straw poll above. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, that's great that Cool Cat is actually discussing this with other editors, but you guys need to involve all of us. So far I can't see any discussion on anyone's talk page about this, so I assume it was an IRC thing? A great deal of debate went into what template and style to use, and if you want to revisit the topic you need to bring it up on this talk page first. And, if I read this right, Taw was the one who unprotected the article, in order to place in these edits? So Cool Cat, instead of discussing it here, went behind everyone's backs and went directly to an admin to sneak in his template. This is extremely inappropriate for both Cool Cat and Taw. -- Ned Scott 08:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I unprotected it mainly to get DVD covers replaced by screenshots. Anyway, the list still sucks and it shouldn't be indefinitely staying in such state. The screenshots and descriptions need to be completed (and they cannot while the article is blocked), and come on - kanji titles to be actually <small>ed ? Taw 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The <small> on the kanji was nothing major, and it seems it was even taken out of {{Japanese episode list}} but just not {{Japanese episode list (no image)}}. The articles it was supposed to help didn't really save much more space, so I took out the small formatting completely. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no conspiracy here... I can ask the opinon of any user (admin or not) with or without your permision. There is absolutely nothing inaproporate with that. I also am not required to involve or inform you about my discussions with others.
Straw polls are not absolute and it is progress if they lead to further discussion (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). The straw poll lead me to modifying my (not really mine) template too meet the points mentioned.
--Cat out 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally prefer the current version. Only my opinion though. — FireFox 15:53, 09 July '06
The straw poll was nothing more than an organization of comments. Each "vote" has a comment and rational behind it. The majority supported LOE's template (some even citing the reason as those differences you think are so minor), especially considering that any changes to LOE templates are discussed ON Wikipedia and promote more input from more editors. These are the reasons why we decided to use the LOE template, not because of a vote, but because the vote was the only way we could spell it out for you. This is called a consensus. You've been repeatedly warned on this issue, and just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean that you get to switch the template over. If you continue you will likely be given a temporary block from Wikipedia for having ownership problems.
Also, you're little spoiler statement "Some of the episode overviews may contain spoilers, but attempts are made to limit their spoilage." is no longer true (in addition to violating WP:SELF). As you can see I've begun writing episode summaries myself, and I have not limited my "spoilage". I will continue to write summaries as well, as I planned to do long before this dispute came about. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an experimental democracy and the point of straw polls are not the votes. All of the rationale mentioned such as issues about "easy usage" or think borders no longer apply. At least two independent people (I picked them randomly) prefer the one line template. Several people I asked refues to get involved as in their view this issue is not worth a dispute.
I refuse to read arguments that primarily discusses the contributor quoting random policies.
--Cat out 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I looked at some other lists. It seems that some like List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes have titles too long to reasonably fit a single line in low resolutions. So if we want to standarize then two-line format actually makes some sense. Then, in this article I think one-line format looks much nicer, so if we don't care about standarization I'd go for one-line 120%-font titles. I guess I don't really care much either way, just be nice to each other guys and finish the descriptions :-) After we're done with the content we can agree to toss a virtual coin or something about the format ;-) Taw 23:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, consistency was apart of my argument. In addition to being interested in this series as a fan, I am also apart of WikiProject List of Television Episodes, which is attempting to help standardize lists of episodes to a reasonable degree. In fact a discussion was started and moved to WT:LOE#Placing english, kanji, and romanji on the same line, but again is mostly just Cool Cat and myself shooting back and forth.
I'm not all together against the Kanji and Romaji on one line, but I haven't heard any significant argument that would warrant breaking from a standard format. Also, I think there are times when, even if you can "fit" that much information on one line, that isn't always a good thing to do so. The use of white space when formatting text can help you guide the reader's eyes, letting them quickly jump from title to title, without getting lost in a sea of text.
There are some other disagreements other than the Title row. Such as, the extra spoiler text that states "Some of the episode overviews may contain spoilers, but attempts are made to limit their spoilage." WP:SELF states that such self-references should be avoided, and rather, use the standard {{spoiler}} templates for such messages. For one, the spoiler template tags have meta data that can allow them to be turned on or off via css (I think I said that correctly). Second, the statement is no longer true, as I have begun to edit summaries and add more, and hopefully more editors other than CC and myself will to the same.
The above discussion about whether or not to list the movie with the episodes seems to favor not including the Air movie, and making the list for episodes, or even additional ovas and movies (if made) as long as they are apart of the Air TV series canon. Only one editor desires it's inclusion, despite concerns that this could confuse the reader. That being said, I'm still open to debating the issue rather than just removing the entry.
Cool Cat was not happy with the consensus reached about what template to use, and has continued to apply his template despite being warned. I understand that now his template has undergone more changes. However, if he would like to re-visit the issue then it should be discussed on the talk page first, as the previous consensus is still in effect. Going ahead and changing it without discussion, knowing full well that the issue has not been taken lightly, is very disrespectful to all editors of this article, regardless of what styles they prefer. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not to discuss me. Regardless of all arguments and issues, contributors are not to be discussed on article talk pages. --Cat out 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If there was a way to resolve this dispute without me having to talk about you, then I'd be all over it. -- Ned Scott 11:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Talking about me is a breach of wikipedians WP:NPA policy. I consider any and all personal remarks as a personal attack (regardless of the intention). Hence all personal remarks must be avoided.
Since you ask for guidance. Here is what I suggest: I'll be creating a new section below and I'd like you to tell me why your version (two line template) is better for this articles case. Please do not quote policies, guidelines etc, just your reasonings.
--Cat out 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are the one wanting to change consensus. It's simply redundant to re-explain what has already been told to you, especially when I've told you in detail why the LOE template is the better choice. And I wasn't the only editor to tell you this. Look at the straw poll results, most cite reasons other than the Kanji placement. Some votes even came in after your template looked very similar to the LOE template, and still went in favor of LOE's template. The LOE template will be maintained and grow with open and well documented discussion. Your suggestions for the Title row to be one line were not ignored, and if you wish for that formatting change then I suggest you take it up on WT:LOE. -- Ned Scott 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Is your argument so weak that it cant survive a debate? And all isues but the kanji debate is invalid since my template offers the exact same thing. Furthermore Straw polls are not absolute.
I do not see WP:LOE as a legitamate authority endorsed by the foundation to rule over articles related to episode lists. It is just a very small wikiproject. All issues about this article should be discussed right here.
--Cat out 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No, my argument is not weak, my argument has already been made. WP:LOE is not an authority, and no one is claiming it is. However, the current consensus is to use the templates under that WikiProject's care. It's an open project that any editor can participate in, including you. Your template does not do the exact same thing, it currently has some very different formatting options (text size, boldness, cell color). Even if it did do the same thing, there still wouldn't be significant reason to use your template over the LOE template. Again, as Taw even said, constancy can also be a very important factor, which would point to LOE's template's usage. -- Ned Scott 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Then please explain/summarise the reasoning to the below section. In the aftermath I will present my points and hopefull we can work for a concensus in the aftermath. --Cat out 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You want me to defend a recent consensus because it didn't come out to your favor? Very well, then. -- Ned Scott 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOE's Japanese episode list

Here are some of the comments from the previous consensus that cite reasons (as in, not "per") and don't have additional comments. Basically, I'm taking examples of reasons already brought up, but stripping the extra discussion, per Cool Cat's request. -- Ned Scott 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll dig through some more stuff and post it here, and I'll even re-write my own personal reasons. But right now I need to get some sleep. I find it very ridiculous to have to defend something so clearly supported, but whatever, I'll go along with it. -- Ned Scott 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can read the archived poll. I want to know the current reasons. Now we have same votes appearinf 3 times. Once in archive and twice here. --Cat out 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was silly too, but you insisted I cut away the extra text and point out the reasons to you. Is there any particular reason you wish me to re-word these statements? I've already removed the statements about easy editing and other "expired" comments, so these should still hold relevance. And as I said, I'll soon offer my own comments, rewritten and whatever, just for the sake of indulging you. -- Ned Scott 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The poll should stay inside the archive. Is there a reason why it shouldn't? Its avalible a link away... and you can link to it if you really wish.
Some of these statements (from the poll) do not hold any value, at least one is self contradictary. I'd like to see arguments (preferably one line arguments, lets summarise and not rant) showing this articles supremecy compared to the rival template.
--Cat out 15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do they not hold any value? And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to tailer my arguments to your demands. That is extremely ridiculous to dictate how you want a statement formatted. I understand if you disagree with some people's comments, but no level of reformatting will change that. -- Ned Scott 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If the rationale no longer applies (as cases when both templates achieve the same thing) it just is no longer relevant. Also self conflicting remarks cannot be seen as an endorsement of either version. Please simply discuss why your template is better than the alternative. --Cat out 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what on Earth you are talking about. -- Ned Scott 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why your template is better than mine without quoting the poll, various guidelines/policies etc. Simply tell why it is better. --Cat out 16:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to exclude examples or my reasons, or tailer my response based on what information you want included or not included. Guidelines, previous discussion, and the like are all apart of my reasons. I feel you are asking me to make a weaker statement in order to aid your argument.. why would I do that? -- Ned Scott 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
All I am asking is for you to explain why LOE is better in a few sentence, logical arguments (not random quotations). Please do so. I am asking this because I feel there is nothing better about your template. --Cat out 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Japanese episode list}} has had several editors maintain, modifying, and using it compared to {{List of Anime Episodes TV}}, which so far, has only one editor maintaining, modifying, and using it. {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} also uses two meta-templates while {{Japanese episode list}} or any of the other WP:LOE template does not. Meta-templates put more stress on the servers by requiring additional calls to the database.
With all do respect, since the input and output of the two templates are now virtually the same with the exception of some minor formatting differences, {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} should be orphaned and TfD in favor of the more broadly supported {{Japanese episode list}} and other WP:LOE backed templates. Continuing to recode {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} as you did with the straw poll won't change my stance on the need to TfD it. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a disccuion about the air list. Please stay on topic. --Cat out 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
He is on topic. An TfD sounds like a great idea. -- Ned Scott 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to evade discusson and stay on topic. --Cat out 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My comments are very much on topic. You are just attempting to dismiss them out-of-had just because I presented an argument that you didn't like and can't rebut. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless that was a threat, nominate it for deletion. It still isn't relevant to this debate. There is nothing so far on this debate telling me why loe template is better. --Cat out 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It is very relevent to the debate. I've given to issues with {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} that do not exist with {{Japanese episode list}} or any of the other WP:LOE templates, yet you continue to ignore them. Now let me reverse the quesiton, how is {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} better then {{Japanese episode list}}? --TheFarix (Talk) 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This debate is about this article: List of Air episodes. Unless you can explain why loe template is better to this article, there is no reason why {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} cant be used. I cannot respond to your question why {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} is "better" untill I see anything about LOE template being better. --Cat out 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think he just did. Look, there's nothing new we can tell you that you don't already know. It's very clear that you don't agree, which is unfortunate, but not a requirement. -- Ned Scott 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a discussion that applies to the current version of the template. I cannot of course agree/disagree to a non-existant discussion. The only discussion I see is you discussing my worth as an editor in a not to friendly manner. --Cat out 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your worth, no, I am not commenting on your worth. Your cooperation with other editors is what I am commenting on.
If you have a new style that you'd like to suggest then maybe you'd like to tell us why it should be used over the WP:LOE template. You've changed the font size and table class, not really a major change from the style you previously supported. -- Ned Scott 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you really want comments about your new changes, I've given my thoughts at Template talk:List of Anime Ep TV#Big text looks awful -- Ned Scott 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recap episode article up for deletion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let everyone know, I've nominated Recap episode (Air episode) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recap episode (Air episode). You can see my reasons and give discussion there. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been protected for almost a month, but I don't see much discussion. Has the dispute died down? If so, I will unprotect the page as it's been more than long enough and re-protect should the edit warring continue. Cowman109Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with main article?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason this is a separate article from the main Air article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_%28TV_series%29 ? I can't really fathom why it needs its own article, when other series integrate theirs in the main entry. 71.162.249.23 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's its own article just for the other reason that many series split the episodes section because it gets too long and obstructive to view on the main article, such as with: List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes, List of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni episodes, List of Ouran High School Host Club episodes, etc. etc. And while I do see your point in that the Air (TV series) article is lacking content, I believe they should still be split.--(十八|talk) 10:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Air_episodes/Archive_2&oldid=1092055972"