User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

RE: Category:Fictional characters who can fly

I was just simplifying it. Characters who fly by force of will or through gadgets pretty much covers it. There was a lot of unnecessary, potentially confusing and restricting detail. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru

Sesshomaru is considered an antihero not a villain. While he was very vicious in the beginning, he's changed since then. He isn't a good character, he isn't in direct opposition to the heroes (Inuyasha's group) either. Its hard to tell if RT intends for Sesshomaru to help Inuyasha defeat Naraku, but he's not going to hinder Inuyasha since Sesshomaru also wants to destroy Naraku. Naraku is the true villain of InuYasha.--Slotedpig 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The manga feels like its winding down, but whether or not it ends this year is anyone's guess. Viz isn't good with distributing things in a timely fashion, so it might be awhile between Ani-manga issues.--Slotedpig 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the information. ~I'm anonymous

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Hey. Basically, usurpation allows an established user to take over an account someone has already registered, providing the account you are requesting has made no edits. So what you need to do, is go to the above page and follow the instructions there - you will need to add {{subst:usurp|Sesshomaru|I'm anonymous}} ~~~~ to the bottom of the page and then notify the user in question you wish to take over there account (There's a template on the page for that). cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more to do, the bit about the email address regarding the user who's account your taking over - if they have an email address set, we can contact them to make sure they don't mind, if they don't have one set - it's tough luck! All you have to do now is wait 7 days to make sure the user doesn't come and edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That article you wanted to create

I would say for you to make a user subpage and work on the article to see if it would work out before creating it. DBZROCKS 15:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

About 17

I have no idea maybe you should change it. DBZROCKS 15:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The names

Fine Ill get an admin to fix it DBZROCKS 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure DBZROCKS 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Goal of WP:DBZ is to use romanisations". No it is not true. Some romanisations make sense (Coola Broli) yet some (Yamucha Chapa O) are lame and unnessisary. DBZROCKS 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah there since when was this an expostitory prompt!? can I hold off on a response? I have a project to do. DBZROCKS 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh well its just that im only editing off and on while my computer loads and does certain things. doing such a large edit would severaly risk an edit conflict which i am seriously not in the mood for. DBZROCKS 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any beef with any of the names exept Pu-erh that one I can get an Admin to change. DBZROCKS 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No no now that I think about it Pu-erh is good. Sorry for all the trouble. DBZROCKS 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well my thought is consistancy and I know that the redirects would be a pain to fix so I went to keep it like that until i can get an admin to change it. Sorry for the confusion. DBZROCKS 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. DBZROCKS 12:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects and categories

If you actually read those pages it says that the only problem with categorizing redirects is that it might result in duplicate listings in the same category. This is not the case for Digimon redirects, so the categories within them do not need to be removed. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your merge comment

You can't have Deskana "Fix up things" if there is no concencus on that from what I can see there are more opposes than supports. Also just because an article is not in the best condition does not mean you can delete it. You couldn't delete Goku's article even if it was two words. DBZROCKS 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Histories

What is up with you nagging me about histories? I missed the mark twice and you don't seem to be able to get over it, if you need an apology then I am sorry. However do not go to my talk page and threaten to report me instead of talking it out like normal people. No one is perfect. On your edit to Majin Buu I am going to revert it due to the way you did the references. But I will change Villan To Supervillan due to this dussussion. DBZROCKS 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no anime sources only manga, adding that will potentially confuse readers. DBZROCKS 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed DBZROCKS 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a reliable source first then add it back and ref it. PS:check out my new sig DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources section is important. See WP:Citing sources. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok You can change the sources thing but I have issues with your deletion of the link to Dragon Ball changing of the meaning Majin among other things. Also I do not appreciate you calling my edits "Vandalism". Calling it such is only fanning the flames of an arguement. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then first I would suggest that we change the meaning of Majin back to what it was. Majin Can also mean demon person. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You changed the meaning of the word majin in the development parapraph. You deleted the second sentance deletaling the fact that Majin can also mean demon person Ma (demon) Jin (person). What I am saying is that that particular information should not of been removed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I think the "Many fans belive that The fairy god mother is what inspired Buu's magical powers (or something like that)" Has to go, it is complete speculation. Also about the sources. I will conced not having it for now. But if the article gets a large amount of notes I will add it back per WP:Citing sources. So lets implement these and the above changes and unlock the article so we can improve it, K? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore you? I was at school it even lists my school hours on my user page. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is when I went to sleep I was tired. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excuse. I had asked you a question before you stopped editing. Just forget it and let's get this "Buu warring" over with before we get blocked. ~I'm anonymous

An exucuse? it was 10:30 or 11:00 my time, I was tired and decided to answer you question the next morning. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

More than just the people objecting remove them. There's no need to categorize all those redirects. It'll just stuff the same page many times into a single category or make back-navigation impossible for specialized ones. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To expand on that, keep it to a minimum, as outlined near the bottom of that section. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add them in the first place, but I wouldn't be against their addition so long as it wasn't excessive and used for something better than category stuffing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I still say list just the important ones. Unless they get decent attention at the redirect, listing them is pointless. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat deletion

I marked the category for deletion. It sometimes takes a while. It will happen. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Womanizer

Thanks for taking time to add the sources. PrimeHunter 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted a lot of vandalism and WP:BLP violations since I once saw it in recent changes and got it on my watchlist, but I don't want to spend time improving it. I just found some sources with Google to show notability in the AfD. PrimeHunter 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: You

I know you from somewhere don't I? You're reminding me of somewhere else? Have you ever edited Wikipedia before on a different account? It's not against the rules if you have, as long as you're not evading a block. I myself have an alternative account that I edit from occasionally that nobody knows about. I'm just curious. --Deskana (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POLLS

You mind if I add WP:VOTE to the shortcut box? Does it have to be limited to two shortcuts only? ~I'm anonymous

It's better that the "vote" shortcuts not be included, as they would serve to reinforce the misconception that "polling" and "voting" are synonymous. This is something that has caused a great deal of confusion, and that's why we changed the page's title to use the term "polling" instead of "voting."

Of course, someone who types "WP:VOTE" will still be taken to the page. The purpose of the shortcut box is not to document every shortcut in existence, but to provide the ones (generally an initialism and/or a word) that most intuitively represent the page's title. The idea that that anyone seeing the shortcut box already has reached the page (one way or another), so we want to inform him/her of the easiest (shortest/most memorable) possible way(s) to return there in the future.

Also note that every additional shortcut increases the header box's size at higher resolutions. Beyond two, it begins to look rather bad. —David Levy 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable. I'll follow your example; the next time I see a shortcut box containing more than two shortcut redirects, I'll put it to two common ones. ~I'm anonymous

Thanks, that would be very helpful!  :-)

If someone complains, please point them to the above explanation. (Some people don't fully understand the shortcut box's purpose or mistakenly believe that unlisted shortcuts will stop working.) —David Levy 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno why they would think that. I normally do that which you speak of — reference to a past discussion with an included wiki-link. ~I'm anonymous

I've encountered some editors who were under the impression that a shortcut's removal from the box meant that it was to be deleted. Most of the objections that I've encountered have stemmed from misunderstandings along those lines.

Occasionally, there's an unobvious reason why a particular shortcut link should be retained (so it's a good idea to listen to feedback), but one initialism and one word usually are more than sufficient. —David Levy 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ~I'm anonymous

what consensus?

Regarding this reversion, just because one person (not even the same one who made the change, despite the discussion being on their talk page--go figure) says the shortcut box should only have 2 shortcuts in it doesn't make it consensus. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru???

I'm not trying to start anything with you, but how is Sesshomaru? I was wondering because I wanted to check out your user page intro and it redirected to Sesshomaru as well as Sesshomaru (ubsurbed). Just wondering. Also what is up between you and DBZROCKS? What is going on that you two? Ya'll are take things on a personal level lately, mainly the Buu page. Heat P 07:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Im Anonamous, or Sesshomaru as I should probably refer to you as from know on, how are you? I've been gone on vacation to Universal Studios for Momorial weekend and it gave me some time to cool down. I know we have had some arguements lately and I came to say that Im willing to change for a chance to start over, how about it? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Paifu

I'm willing to accept 3 images at this time. About the character's popularity and design, if the character is only known in Japan, then say that. Wikipedia is not US-centric. Are there books or a website that deal with the background of the series' creation? Surely the manga didn't spring from nowhere. Knowing nothing about the series, I can't point you to anything specific, but I'm sure it must be out there.--Danaman5 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I've dealt with worse situations, I must admit, it took me a minute to figure out who you were. If you still wanna talk, you know where to find me. :) --MajinVegeta 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe your comment may be addressed to someone else.--Danaman5 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the article Beelzebub (Sand Land) has many of the same problems that I saw in the Paifu article. I'll let someone else review it, but you may want to address some of these concerns.--Danaman5 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

About that Majin Buu and Vegeta stuff

Great all of that can be added, also the best idea would be to look at the manga book where Vegeta first appears and see what the date of the Akira Toriyama comment at the front of the book is. That should say it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Also Why don't you add a link to your talk page in your signiture? Its really convenient for people who want to give you a message. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that we should have the Funimation sagas. Merging all of them into just the Saiyan, Freeza, Cell and Majin Buu sagas whould be better. The problem is that the sagas as is are too much of a blow by blow thing and also that since there are so many Funimation sagas, it is difficult to keep track of them all so it tends to be (exuse my language) a bunch of fanon crap. There are pretty much no pictures so there not exactally reader friendly either. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What im saying is that it is basically a blow by blow ki blast by ki blast plot summary and that there are to many of them and that they should be merged so they aren't that long. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright Ill rephrase this again, blow by blow means that it is describing the fights in extreme detail which makes the article long and boring. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No I ment the saga pages. ex: Freeza Saga DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

Before adding any more, you should see if Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects is going to go through or not. If it does in its current state, those will be removed. TTN 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It states that "Most redirects should not be categorized." Neither of the four examples fit the "fictional x" categories or anything like that. "Redirects to sections" is fine, but the rest will not fit it. Though that will only be if it manages to make it in that state. TTN 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we only have the small section, but if that passes, it will be pretty clear on what stays and what goes. Only in special cases will redirects need categories as explained by it. That discussion is before the guideline proposal, so it really doesn't make sense to point to it. That is why people are discussing the guideline; they're forming a general consensus. This still is just only if it does pass, though. TTN 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Aliens in Dragon Ball move

Shouldn't Extraterestrials (sorry if I misspelled) be changed to extraterestrials because of the policy that makes it so that only names and the first word are capitalised? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vizard abilities

They have no categorizable abilities beyond those common to all shinigami. They have super speed, maybe super strength, and that's it. None of those other categories apply to the group as a whole. --tjstrf talk 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the anime, and more importantly read the manga. They are not flying, they are simply walking on air. Ichigo's been able to do that since chapter 3. Even Chad can do that.

The only shinigami that really fly are Hitsugaya and Ichigo/Yoruichi with Yoruichi's artifacts. (A couple of arrancar get wings with their release forms as well.) --tjstrf talk 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No name that I'm aware of, though for Quincy it's part of the hirenkyaku skill, however you spell that. They're basically projecting spirit particles from their feet to offset their weight. --tjstrf talk 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts as it is not a defining trait for any of them, except Hitsugaya's flying, and airwalking is most definitely not the same as flying, being more like levitation. --tjstrf talk 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd revert that as well, not only because I don't believe in categorizing redirects in mainspace categories, and because it is not a defining trait, but because that is not a character page. Sorry to be disagreeable, but those really aren't useful categorizations in any way. --tjstrf talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not negative, just not a primary ability, therefore useless to categorize, and factually inaccurate besides. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: If it's not a signature ability, they don't go in the category. Arrancar's signature physical ability is not their speed, or strength or airwalking, or any of those other things. It's probably their iron skin. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not by popularity, by trademark skill. Skills that are just general stuff anyone can do don't need to be on the pages. For instance, Renji's used fire-based kido a few times, but that doesn't make a him a candidate for List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. Same deal here. --tjstrf talk 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That Hitsugaya can probably go in the flight category, since it's a rather unique ability of his. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done by me May 1^st. Lord Sesshomaru

Just one: Vizard is not a character page and should not be in any "characters with X" categories at all. --tjstrf talk 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. That would be at Vizard in Bleach, like Hollows in Bleach and Bounts in Bleach and Characters in Bleach all are. --tjstrf talk 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, no it shouldn't. Vizard is the corresponding article to Hollow (Bleach). We have no separate character list for the Vizard because, aside from Shinji who has his own page, we know nothing substantial about most of them so it would be mostly pointless.

As for the others you mentioned: Grimmjow has his own article, so there's no pretense for categorizing that redirect. Grimmjow has no no signature abilities anyway, unless you count stabbing people with his hand, so there's nothing to even categorize him under. D-Roy similarly lacks any categorizable attributes, and shouldn't be categorized because he is an incredibly minor character not needing an article, so his redirect doesn't warrant them either.

The only time redirects are categorized is when they are being categorized into a category either intended for redirects (e.g. "redirects from CamelCase") or a category which groups things based on their names (e.g. "games released under multiple titles in English speaking countries") where the redirects are among the names being categorized. --tjstrf talk 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline does not address the subject at all, meaning editorial judgment comes into play (i.e. happy fun edit war time ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ until it's actually decided). If the DBZ project wishes to categorize redirects, then so be it, but barring an actual consensus mandating them I will do my best to keep them off of Bleach redirects. This is to avoid clutter, by the way, not to prove a point: there are 150+ Bleach characters, most of them in no way notable enough for their own article. Categorizing their redirects is therefore patently unhelpful.

Finally, D-Roy may be an "air specialist", whatever that means, but we don't have a Category:Fictional air combat specialists, so that's not a categorizable trait. And as I explained above, he most certainly doesn't fly. I don't recall Grimmjow being an air specialist in the first place.

So yes, this discussion has probably gone on long enough. If you find some new and exciting category you think applies to the articles (like I recently did with Category:Fictional ghosts, now a parent cat of Category:Shinigami in Bleach), then fine, add away, but please do not spam the articles with categorycruft from the Fictional characters by nature category tree just because they marginally apply. Those should not be used unless it is a defining trait of the character. --tjstrf talk

If you had read my archive you'd have picked a different person to ask for backup. I agree with tjstrf. What you're doing is pointless. Redirects are only needed for important circumstances (well-known alternate name, etc.), not things like "this character can shoot lasers out of his foot". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Argh, you should have said you're I'm anonymous. At least, my reading of your contribs would seem to suggest it. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects for situations to categorize redirects. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See the proposed guideline I linked. This is being hammered out there. Fiction cats aren't part of it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I ignored it until that popped up. That guideline represents and end to this sort of thing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean I didn't bother checking until someone brought Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects up on the Village Pump. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so much support as apathy, but yes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would. Like I told you when you first asked, they should be for important things, not trivial ones. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be an example of trivial. An alternate and well-known title would be an example of important. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do nothing. They don't need those categories. It's just bloating the cat with redirects. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh not again

First off you messed up the list, almost everyone is a sub category of Freeza and TWO you yet again called my edits vandalism. I gave good reason in my edit summary to do what I did. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

did you read my previous edit? I said that the way you reordered the list was in correct and many sections that should of been there were deleted and most of the characters were now subjections of Freeza. I do not disagree with the policy. Also you added other stuff while you did this. Its hard to undo the wrong stuff and the Good stuff at the same time so Im sorry if other things you added were deleted. If you give me a chance I can fix the list so it doesn't list every character. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the fact that it is a perposed guideline as you stated means that it doesn't need to be followed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a perposed guideline? Also the way you did the sections was wrong. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer the question instead of avoiding it? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to a different one? That seems to be about subarticles. Subsections are only mentioned once. TTN 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to leave to go somewhere right now. Lets pick up the argument some other time. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue this no longer. It will be reverted. Lord Sesshomaru

First, you may want to point it out to me. I have read over the entire thing three times and I'm just not seeing it. I may be just overlooking it, but it doesn't seem to be there. Subsections are mentioned once, and table of contents isn't mentioned at all. TTN 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is fine to condense it, but you're going a little too far. It would be fine to combine those non-notable henchmen, and the garbage like that, but there really is no reason to stick everything under them. TTN 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Combining every single little thing leaves a strange look. The whole thing could be rearranged, but there seems to be little reason to lock everything into wide sections. What does naming subarticles have to do with this? This is about wide subsections, so they have little in common. Lead section also mentions nothing of it. If this is an actual guideline, I don't mind, but you haven't actually shown anything yet. TTN 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff can be condensed, but it should be fine to leave the larger characters. The henchmen can go, but the real "major" ones should be fine. TTN 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I don't care anymore. Unless these article actually obtain some quality, how they're arranged means nothing. TTN 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your the one whos doing things before discussing them. Also the way you put the sections is still srewed up. Tomarrow I am reverting it and changing it so that it doesn't have so many sections but is not in the condition it is in now. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it state that lists must have vague sections? Also didn't you say in your edit summary that this is a perposed guidline? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary Style

I've made a starting edit on the article in question and left a note on the talk page. I agree with your sentiments - the article is inappropriately using subheadings at this point. The TOC should not contain a link to every paragraph in the article. Unacceptable. Nswinton\^talk 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm abandoning the article. I have no interest in the topic, and the main editors don't seem to have any interest in WP:MOS. Hard to find a common ground there. There seems to be a bigger interest in making an info dump than formatting and working to make quality articles. If you want to stick it out with them, there is a suggestion on what to do with the TOC on the talk page now. That would help some. Prose, referencing, lead, etc. all need a lot of help as well. Sorry I couldn't really accomplish much. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance on this article as opposed to the supernatural beings one. It's confusing that my edit was criticized as being sloppy and inappropriate when edits leading up to mine were largely irresponsible, sloppy and written in a 12-year-old conversational style. Best of luck. Nswinton\^talk 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This will probably sound snobby and/or bratty, but I'm generally used to working with editors that are working to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia along with the quantity, not at the cost of it. I reverted myself out of a symbolic act of "washing my hands" of the article and topic. I'm going to try and stick to my neighborhood of wikipedia more. Someone with knowledge of the topic and a willingness to "fight the good fight" there will have to do the work. You, perhaps? Nswinton\^talk 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me and get going on it. I'm not going to wade back into that mess again, though. Sorry and best of luck! Nswinton\^talk 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out how the TOC on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is formatted. The scripting is pretty simple. The subheadings can remain then if people want them to remain, and the TOC can be a limited summary. The other thing that really badly needs to happen is sourcing. There are 0 sources for the article, preventing it from even being taken seriously in any kind of peer review. If you're familiar with the subject, you can probably pull stuff together and at least get 1-2 sources in there for every character. I'm sorry, I thought when you initially contacted me that I'd just me mentioning WP:MOS again and people would chill out. I wasn't expecting an entrenchment of fanboyism. I made my edits on the other list of DB Supernaturals while working on the "Articles needing cleanup" page. Another thing you can do is tag the article as unreferenced, conversational, and not following WP:MOS, list it on "Articles needing cleanup", and watch some other editors work it over. Either way, I'm not interested in getting personally involved. I'm involved in some large projects already with Great Commission Association, Azusa Street Revival and WikiProject Christianity. I'm just not interested in taking on something like this personally. Nswinton\^talk 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guru (Dragon Ball Z)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Guru (Dragon Ball Z), by Kbdank71, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Guru (Dragon Ball Z) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this page is a redirect to a deleted page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Guru (Dragon Ball Z), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Guru (Dragon Ball Z) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guru (Dragonball Z)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Guru (Dragonball Z), by Kbdank71, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Guru (Dragonball Z) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this page is a redirect to a deleted page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Guru (Dragonball Z), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Guru (Dragonball Z) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guru (DBZ)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Guru (DBZ), by Kbdank71, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Guru (DBZ) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this page is a redirect to a deleted page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Guru (DBZ), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Guru (DBZ) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)