User talk:Axem Titanium/Archive 9

Re:Surprise FA fail

We'll call it a swap- if Karanacs feels the articles need more reviews, I'll give yours an in-depth look- video games is certainly something on which I don't mind commenting. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:killer7 copyedit

Wow. I'm really sorry I've been out man. I will add it to my list of things to do, but I'm honestly not certain when I can get to it. I'll shoot for sometime this week. Thanks for helping out with Lara Croft. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

I gave it a crack. The article looks to be in good shape, but I'm sure someone at FAC will find something I probably missed. Just remember to add the alt text for the images. Another set of eyes copy editing should improve its chances at FAC. I recommend heading to GAN first though, because the reviewer may provide some good feedback useful for FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

Congrats on the successful FA. Sorry I was out when it was up. Keep up the good work man. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Italics in titles

I just wanted to apologize for my edit summary: until last week, I would not have been correct to state "since when do you need consensus to italicize a title", since policy was fairly explicitly against it. Per the RFC on WP:ITALICTITLE, though, consensus has changed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Killer7 current FAC

There is nothing wrong in asking editors who have participated in earlier reviews to "take a look" at a FAC nom. I do it, and often the editors in question ask to be told when the nom goes up. The words Ling points up as inappropriate are "or perhaps lend support"; this could be interpreted as a canvass. I'm sure that was not your intention, so don't worry about it. My comments at the previous FAC were confined to sources issues; in those circumstances I do not normally register supports or opposes, I simply list issues (if any) that require attention. Unless another reviewer does it before me, I will be happy to check out the sources again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Killer7

I've not renominated yet- I currently have another article at FAC (which is also attracting little attention- no one cares about pop culture there!) but I do intend to renominate soon. I sadly have little Internet access at the moment, but I will do my best to get around to offering a review of Killer7. Thanks for dropping me a note. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Johnston (singer)/archive2

Thanks very much for your review. I have replied there. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FF7 Fantasy casting

Hello, first, let me thank you for helping deal with the whole situation of using the fantasy casting article in the character articles. It's been a week since this whole thing has started, and no one has defended it but Tintor, plus the various policies it's not in line with, I'd say that is plenty to have reached a consensus, right? Anyway, I've gone ahead and removed it from all the character articles but Cloud's since I cannot access it. Would you be able to remove it for me? Thanks again. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable people

Would you mind setting up a reliable people table on WP:VG/RS? I've got a few, such as GamerDad, Leigh Alexander, Stephen Totilo, and Brian Crecente. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cloud Strife

Please avoid assuming wp:bad faith. The only thing the anon is saying is "consensus reached" which goes against the guideline Wp:consensus. The same goes with "consensus is against you", as it does not explain why. As it was already stated, the current source doesn't break crystalball (even the article's name says it's not happening), it's not trivia (the sources' informations are relative to all the previous ones) and its not undue because of the previous ones. If it is just because editors don't like, it goes against a neutral point of view. As I asked the editors, what is the reason for removal? I agreed with the first ones, so that's why I revised them. Moreover Removing things saying its "consensus" is not a valid reason, and could be deemed as blanking. Number of editors does not matter also when using consensus.Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You accused the anon of "disruptive editing". How is that not bad faith on your part? At this point, you're just citing as many guidelines and policies as you can in order to fight against an established consensus, regardless of relevance. Why don't you take it to a larger community to discuss it, if you care so much about your little source? It's tiring arguing with you since all you do is reject the opposition's premises without grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I accused him of that cos of lack of responses and just editing which is already discruptive editing. And what are the "opposition's premises"? That's what I wanna know. Until now, I accepted all the points given and worked in that, but the anon and you keep removing it saying it's "consensus" which is not a reason. I'm also tired of that (even the anon reported me), but I still don't find it convincing why remove reception from an article saying "consensus" and no reason given.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See? It's exactly this attitude of assuming there's "no reason given" which frustrates me. Obviously, it's not "no reason" or else there would be no discussion. My talk page is not the proper venue for this debate. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bothering. I just wanted to know the reason for the source being called trivia or undue, but I also got tired of that.Tintor2 (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing template's POV

You can't change a template without discussing. a timeline is too in-universe. a chronology of the games and anime is best suited without making it too in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can. Anyway, the fact that the series takes place in an alternate version of Earth is extremely central to the plot since it discusses science fiction and speculative fiction concepts. Please re-read WP:IN-U and think about what it's actually trying to guard against. The timeline clearly labels the chronology as "fictional" and at no point treats it as "real", nor does it omit real-world info. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

but when theres a bold, revert rule, then you can't change it back until properly discussed. WP:BOLD also suggest to be careful, and not be reckless. I know we can be bold whenever, but we also have to worry if it's worth it or not or if it's an actual "fix" instead of a "change". the timeline is explained in various times, but never really focuses on it too much. science fiction or not, that shouldn't be a reason why it merits a story. and there are dozens and dozens of ainime and video game series that take place in an alternate universe, that doesn't merit a timeline for it either. theres a setting section for each article to focus on it's own timeline. sure it explains various things happened, but doesn't completely focus on it. Especially if it hasn't been covered completely. if you find any second party or third party sources talking about the timeline than probbly a change is probably better, but at the moment it's too in-universe, and only a select few will understand itPLus the last part of WP:IN-U is more reassuring about it.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I accept that. And you'll note that I didn't revert it to my version at all during this discussion. I don't believe I ever called it a "fix", which implies that the previous version was "broken". If you think the in-universe concern outweighs the benefit of clearly illustrating how the various elements of the series relate chronologically, then fine. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

.hack FAC

I got your note about the FAC, but I think I'll sit this one out. I know a fair bit about prose issues, but I'm no expert on the contents of most game articles. I wish you the best with it. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

you should post FAC on the .hack (video game series) talk page, it's hard to find.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The FAC template is right at the top of the talk page. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i already found it. i just left my input already.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

chronology

the chronology shows exactly, when it was released. Yes it may go according to the fictional one, but it's still technically, the real-world view of the chronology still stands, unless you prove that it's not.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the chronology then. Just by looking at the release dates, for example at List of .hack media, you know that this is the order that the games were released in. If this were the only purpose of the template, I would nominate it for deletion since it's redundant. However, as it stands, the template is placed in the "Plot" section of each article, meaning that it must add something to the understanding of the plot. What it adds is that the viewer now knows what the overall fictional history of the series is, which you don't understand unless you mark it as "fictional". Axem Titanium (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been against the .hack media from the beginning because that's what trully is redundant. it's just everything we have now but in list format, along with some additional information that isn't sourced. You say things such as my project pages relating to .hack are redundant, or this template. But it's the very article you made that isn't necessary at this time. For a multi-franchise series such as this that has chronicles within the franchsie, the media information is already best suited for the main franchise article.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also it has original research and such as parts where it's states "for project .hack" instead of stating "for all media created within Project .hack".Bread Ninja (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A list of media is very standard practice across Wikipedia, especially for a large franchise with many different types of media like manga, anime, and games. It provides a central location where one can consult release dates and find a brief description of each item. Obviously it's a work in progress at this point, but there is no deadline. Look at the relationship between Kingdom Hearts and List of Kingdom Hearts media for what this should ideally look like. The series article provides a detailed text description of major elements of the series and has an outline of the overall plot. The list presents the same material but in a table format for easy viewing. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Standard practice, doesn't mean it's a necessity for all franchise articles. There is a large difference between .hack franchise and Kingdom hearts franchise. For one, Kingdom Hearts' plot is completely centralized within the video games and no sequel, or prequel has expanded towards another media, all of it's alternate media has been mere adaptations or merchandise. .hack isn't completely centralized in one piece of media plot-wise. for kingdom hearts a list would be good considering the main franchise article focuses on the video game series. But for .hack franchise, it's focus is in almost all media it has released. Unless you we were able to fix the article to keep it centralized in one or two specific types of media, and force all other media to be in the List of .hack media. Then the article would serve more useful, but at the moment, as it stands it does not and i'm not talking about deadline. i mean if we left things the way they were in other articles such as the franchise and found references for the list of media, then this article would still be redundant. So which is it? is the template too redundant, or is media article too redundant?

There is no real need to put "fictional" chronology onto it, because it lines up with the releases. It wouldn't be redundant, it just leaves room for it to serve two purposes.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, you're a lot of talk, but when it comes down to it, you don't do a lot of meat and beans article improvement. I could drop everything and start improving List of .hack media right now, but it's not exactly on the top of my priority list. In my head, I have a vision of what I would like the .hack articles to look like, but who knows how long it will take to get to that point. However, I know that it eventually will get done because I actually get down to business sometimes to do some honest to goodness writing. So yes, you can argue to your wit's end about the individual differences between .hack and Kingdom Hearts and how this or that format is best for presenting the information, but until you actually do something, it's all fluff. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

meat and beans? i think, you're trying to provoke me. Plus this is highly uncivil. So lets just stick to the main topic. I just don't want you to be one of those other users who think they have an entire set of articles to themselves and believes their rule is absolute. Though I'm not the best at sourcing, i do know a thing or two about formatting and organizing, when articles are notable, and various other things. And it's not that i dont know how to look for references, it's just putting them in is very time-consuming and have to figure it out with each one i add in, and i dont have that kind of time.

But for now, if you want the .hack media article to stay, then i suggest you work on the main franchise article to further it's importance. And also...add refs, i don't even think it's that hard to do considering, the list of .hack media is practically redundant.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I just call 'em like I see 'em, no incivility intended. On the other hand, I do take offense when you place the onus on me to provide references when you have done nothing of the sort. Ah, well. Winter break is coming up. I guess I'll have time to rewrite them then. A writer's work is never done... Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Then think before you type if you don't intend incivility. And i have attempted to add references. that's all you need to know.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you a better editor, I don't regret my words. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't think you're helping at all...you're only causing more problems. what you say doesn't even make sense. i don't think you're even trying anymore, you're just saying whatever and you're practically admitting you're being uncivil.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe I've been the most help, at least with respect to the articles in question. Compare the article to what it was before and tell me it wasn't an improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this discussion. And i don't even remember the article appearing like that. In fact, it was originally separated into 4 articles. That must've been when you decided to merge them down, but even then i remembered more content than that.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series

User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Kingdom Hearts (video game)

This edit is not allowed at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. What specifically is not allowed about it? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Hepburn romanization is mandatory, and your edits inadvertantly caused the removal of all Japanese text from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was vaguely aware of some large scale discussion about that a little while back, but it seems like I had a mistaken perception of its conclusion. My apologies. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

added discussion to ff series template

as the title suggest. as part of the BRD rule. i hope we can discuss this quickly.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 16, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII is a console role-playing video game developed and published by Square Enix for the PlayStation 2. Released in 2006, it is the twelfth title in the Final Fantasy series. The game takes place in the fictional location of Ivalice, where the empires of Archadia and Rozarria are waging an endless war. Dalmasca, a small kingdom, is caught between the warring nations. When Dalmasca becomes annexed by Archadia, its princess, Ashe, creates a resistance movement. During the struggle, she meets Vaan, a young adventurer who dreams of commanding an airship. They are quickly joined by a band of allies; together, they rally against the tyranny of the Archadian Empire. Final Fantasy XII received universally high scores, and earned numerous awards in various categories from noted video game publications. Selling more than two million copies in Japan, it became the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 worldwide. As of March 2007, the game has shipped over 5.2 million copies worldwide. A sequel, Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, was released for the Nintendo DS in 2007. (more...)

Edea image

It is true that it is covered; but is it not also true that Irvine's appearance is discussed? I argue that simply being discussed in reliable or primary sources is not enough to warrant a fair use image's inclusion, especially one that covers such a small portion of the article's subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Edea's image is unique among the set of all possible images that could be included in this article because her design is so radically different than the other characters' (owing to her origin as an emulation of Amano's style). I think an illustration of this is valuable because it is difficult to convey this difference in style in words alone. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be difficult yes, but again, this can be argued for any number of potential images; I'm sure if we looked into the characters article, we can find content discussing potential images that are at least as good if not better in terms of fair use rationale. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible. If you'd like to discuss those on the talk page, go ahead. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Click here.

--King-9 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kenichi Maeyamada

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Analgesic group.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Analgesic group.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 8-4

The DYK project (nominate) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nintendo GameCube edit: Is Webcite down?

Regarding this edit, it seems like Webcite's backend database might be down or something. I can't find any webcitation.org link that does work, even those created well outside the "April 23rd, 2010 and May 10th, 2010" window mentioned in their error message. Anomie⚔ 14:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, we'll see if it comes back up again, then. At any rate, I found a more recent citation so maybe you want to request an archive for that one too? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually found your edit because my script that lets me know which articles need updating when Nintendo releases a new quarterly report flagged Nintendo GameCube as having a new link to the latest report; in articles for older consoles, I've been leaving them with a WebCited older version because nothing will be changing. As a test I tried archiving the newest version, but it eventually claimed "The caching attempt failed for the following reason: Could not establish the root of the downloaded page. This is most likely caused by a page class which isn't supported yet by WebCite." Anomie⚔ 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So WebCite doesn't work on pdfs? Is that what it is? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Always has before, and even regular webpages archived in 2007 are not working. Haven't tried archiving a new regular webpage yet, but I expect the same error. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmkay. Well, hope it comes back online soon then. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They've got a new error message: "On Sep 3rd (just before the long labor day weekend), WebCite went down due to a hardware failure. While we are restoring the database from our backups, no new snapshots can be made, and old snapshots may be temporarily unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience caused." Anomie⚔ 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm sure it'll be fine soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be back up. http://www.webcitation.org/5nXieXX2B works again, and the new PDF is at http://www.webcitation.org/61fjnoFrs. Anomie⚔ 17:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! That's good to hear. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

List of game engine articles

Hi, I saw that you redirected List of game engine articles to List of game engines because of the merge proposal. But what about the actual merge? Are you going to do it, or are you just going to leave it as it is now? —Kri (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting be merged? I never really figured out what was supposed to be unique about that list. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The unique thing with the list was explained in the article. The result of your edit was that the article was simply deleted (or turned into a redirect page which is the same thing in this case), since you removed all content and did not show any attempt to restore it in any other form. If you simply want to delete the article it is better to nominate it for deletion, or if you prefer it to be merged but don't want to do the merge yourself, I suggest that you wait with deleting the content until it's fully converted to the other article.

About the merge proposal: It was not me who made it; I created the article and was never really for the merge. —Kri (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As a redirect, the content is still there in the article history. If you think there is useful content to rescue, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. The consensus of the discussion was that there was no need to have two articles on the same topic. I read the article and I couldn't figure out what it was trying to get at. Maybe something about what new/notable features each engine had? I'm not really sure. At any rate, maybe the scope of the main list should be expanded to whatever it was that you were proposing, or maybe not. That's a separate discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was mainly about other articles that is about game engines (as the article title says), but that's not really important. I still say that either you delete the article (which it seems like you have done now), or you transfer what has to be transferred in the merge. If you don't know what has to be transferred and don't want to delete the article, don't do anything. That is why I haven't done anything. —Kri (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume that what you really wanted to do was to delete the article, and that you therefore didn't care to preserve the content in any other form. Since no one other than me seems to understand what the article was for, maybe we should leave it deleted. But next time, make a request for a deletion instead of just doing it yourself. —Kri (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused. 1) There was a discussion about merging which you seemed to consent to. Merging what, I still don't know, but I'm guessing it was something. 2) All of the content you are calling "deleted" still exists here. So, no, I won't make a deletion request next time if my intention is to merge and redirect. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What made you think I consented to the merge? As I've already mentioned, I was never really for the merge, even though I didn't really mind it either. You did however not do any merge, since you didn't add any of the removed content to the other article. But you also didn't delete the article, so what did you do? For me it feels like you're trying to fall somewhere in between the two. Yes the information still exists there, but that could also be used as an argument for vandals to justify blanking of pages. —Kri (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe you're right. What I originally wanted to do was to create a list of game engine articles because I knew the reading would be interesting. And when I had them all (well, not yet) in one list I thought I could as well make some small notes about the technologies they used. By maybe I should just create a category Game engines instead. —Kri (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)"

I get the feeling that you're still not completely familiar with how Wikipedia works. When I redirected the list, the information still exists and you are completely welcome to rescue that to merge into the main list. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know what is worth merging (though I have some ideas about what isn't worth merging) so I leave that to you. I just did the easy part, which was to redirect the list whose creation was unsupported by consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The merge was only on discussion. I never intended to do any merge myself; in fact, I don't know how it was supposed to have been carried out. Therefore, I will not complete the merge, and I guess you won't complete it either. So should we maybe restore the old article the way it was? —Kri (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid "I don't feel like it" is not a valid reason for going against consensus. If you're not the one to complete the merge, no one will. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm the only one who can complete the merge, I suggest that we cancel it and restore the old version of the article since I have no idea how it's intended that the merge is carried out. I didn't suggest the merge, someone else did. —Kri (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly how consensus-building on Wikipedia works. One editor can't just decide he or she doesn't like the outcome and reject it. If you would like to contest the outcome of the discussion, take it to a wider audience at WT:VG. Otherwise, if you're not in the mood to merge anything, then it's probably best to drop it. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean that the consensus is? Do you think the consensus is to do or to continue the merge, even when no one can finish it?

I don't know why you say that I'm not in the mood, or that "I don't feel like it"; I simply can't finish the merge because I don't know how it's supposed to be done. Now we have started something that is never going to be finished, which makes me wonder: In what state is the article right now? Is it undergoing a merge, which in that case will never be completed? Or is the article deleted? Since no one has requested for a deletion, I guess it's the former. And in that case I would much rather just see the article get deleted, because I don't think it's good to start something that no one is ever going to finish and then just leave it as it is. —Kri (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MERGE for what a merge is. If you would rather it be deleted, then you don't have to do anything at this point. The article is currently a WP:REDIRECT which is fine for what you seem to be getting at. There's nothing finished or unfinished about it right now. If nothing happens, then it was redirected. If you or someone performs a merge, then it will have been merged and redirected. Either way, the action is already finished. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice! —Kri (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Capcom Five

Hello! Your submission of Capcom Five at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Odie5533 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Capcom Five

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capcom Five

The article Capcom Five you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Capcom Five for things which need to be addressed. GRAPPLE X 02:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the changes, the article has now passed. Well done! GRAPPLE X 11:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You're awesome for knowing how to play violin.
Just thought I'd say....

Betsi-HaP (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We share a lot of video-game related interests (.hack is awesome)

Network Template TFD 2

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)