Talk:The Big O

message: I just did some editing to the lead section. I'm new at this, so I'd appreciate any mistakes I may have made be pointed out so I don't make them again.
I hope this to be the first of my contributions to The Big O article. This is one of my all-time favorite animes, and I'd like this article to reach A-status.
--- The before was an unsigned comment, from I don't know who, sorry.
>>>Here's hoping. Also, if someone could look at Dastun's profile, that last sentence is niggling at me as awkward, but I don't know how to make it flow better.
13:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or add a little something to fill the white space. Same with all the others, with the exception of Dorothy. In fact, Dastun's profile merits a re-write. The whole section was kind of a last minute edit for earning the GA-status and I haven't look at it since.--Nohansen 13:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised lead section 

message: I propose the Setting section be split into its own article. The article is getting kinda big, and since "Setting" is the biggest section it makes sense (to me). In a separate article it could be better edited and serves its purpose(s) better. Heck, Gotham has its own article. Why not Paradigm?--Nohansen 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradigm City article 

message: I tried to avoid it, I don't like deleting other people's work, but some things just had to go. Other, were out of place. If someone would start work on SteveA026's suggested List of allusions in The Big O, they could be reincorporated.--Nohansen 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to main article 

message: This seems like a very good article to me. The only things I can point is that the writing, if good, is sometimes a little weak, specially in the lead. And the text about the characters should wrap to get rid of the white space. Ah, also, I'm sure the first sentence of the "style" part could be rephrased to make sure it is not OR at all. I'll come back for a more thorough review. Cheers!--SidiLemine 16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes as suggested. What I couldn't figure out how to change where the "episode notes." How should it be done? Change to "(See Act:01)"? Add a reference that reads "See Act:01"; or maybe add it to Notes section? An example would be nice. Ah, also: I tried to display the references in columns, but its not working.--Nohansen 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Madlax, Serial Experiments Lain and Planetes for good examples on how to quote episodes.--SidiLemine 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the examples. Now I'm done with the quotes.--Nohansen 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good work overall. I personally see no objections left to GA, and I think it should go to FAC after another peer review (announcing the FAC intention). Maybe list it with the good folks of the League of Extraordinary Copyeditors in the meantime, to ensure good text quality. --SidiLemine 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not let the Featured article candidate commentators tell you? But before you do that, you might want to clean up Paradigm City. The FAC regulars do not like it when the "summary" of the daughter article is better sourced and/or written the daughter article itself. If I know Sandy, you're going to get an earful for wrapping  around such an article. See the FAC page for Germany if you don't believe me (hint: Type in Ctrl+F, type in "Education", and then press "Next" three times.).--Rmky87 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only thing that would be a problem, apart from the main articles above, would be the amount of print sources. The "FAC people" give a lot more value to print sources (be it essays, books, magazines, or dictionnaries) than they do to websites. One or two magazione interviews (newtype USA comes to mind), and an essay (be it by an undergraduate, the trick is to have "p. 36" somwhere :) - be sure to archive this talk page before you go to FAC!). On this matter, the ISBN for "The Big O Visual", ref n°31, is lacking. If you ask me, add 5 print sources, add some more sources to the Paradigm City article, reduce the size of the Big O template (maybe make it two columns?), and it's pretty much guaranteed FA status sooner or later.--SidiLemine 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually just wondering why none of the sources in this article's summary were in the daughter article. I'm embarrassed to say that I never thought of those other things.--Rmky87 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the looks of things, you're going to have to actually buy this book, if you haven't already, because I couldn't find the ISBN anywhere. A good page to add a specific page number from that book would be the first note in the section I created for the footnotes. The featured article commentators really hate when you force them to look through an entire book for one lousy fact, which is why articles with references at the bottom get FARC'd for having no inline citations. And don't be surprised if professional copyeditor types point out a whole laundry list of prose problems. I didn't see any, but I'm not one of them.--Rmky87 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the ISBN-10 number. If it matters, the ISBN-13 number is 978-4575295795. See here.--Nohansen 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref #24 looks like it should be in the notes section, with the reference in cite.php and a  or some other such warning to English readers somewhere! Seriously, I had absolutely no idea until I saw the Amazon page.--Rmky87 06:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the one about "Good guys still wear black"? I'm not sure what your comment is referring to. The 24th result of the Google search mentioned? --DocumentN (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: One thing to watch for (in this and other articles) is a link on the "What links here" pages to the Magazine or Reference library for the project. In this case, there's one linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Newtype USA/2003, which means there is at least some coverage of this topic in that issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom 

message: I'm wondering: What does an article need to be featured? 'Cause right now, I'm just about tapped out of ideas on what to do with the article.--Nohansen 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not let the Featured article candidate commentators tell you? But before you do that, you might want to clean up Paradigm City. The FAC regulars do not like it when the "summary" of the daughter article is better sourced and/or written the daughter article itself. If I know Sandy, you're going to get an earful for wrapping  around such an article. See the FAC page for Germany if you don't believe me (hint: Type in Ctrl+F, type in "Education", and then press "Next" three times.).--Rmky87 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only thing that would be a problem, apart from the main articles above, would be the amount of print sources. The "FAC people" give a lot more value to print sources (be it essays, books, magazines, or dictionnaries) than they do to websites. One or two magazione interviews (newtype USA comes to mind), and an essay (be it by an undergraduate, the trick is to have "p. 36" somwhere :) - be sure to archive this talk page before you go to FAC!). On this matter, the ISBN for "The Big O Visual", ref n°31, is lacking. If you ask me, add 5 print sources, add some more sources to the Paradigm City article, reduce the size of the Big O template (maybe make it two columns?), and it's pretty much guaranteed FA status sooner or later.--SidiLemine 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually just wondering why none of the sources in this article's summary were in the daughter article. I'm embarrassed to say that I never thought of those other things.--Rmky87 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the looks of things, you're going to have to actually buy this book, if you haven't already, because I couldn't find the ISBN anywhere. A good page to add a specific page number from that book would be the first note in the section I created for the footnotes. The featured article commentators really hate when you force them to look through an entire book for one lousy fact, which is why articles with references at the bottom get FARC'd for having no inline citations. And don't be surprised if professional copyeditor types point out a whole laundry list of prose problems. I didn't see any, but I'm not one of them.--Rmky87 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the ISBN-10 number. If it matters, the ISBN-13 number is 978-4575295795. See here.--Nohansen 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref #24 looks like it should be in the notes section, with the reference in cite.php and a  or some other such warning to English readers somewhere! Seriously, I had absolutely no idea until I saw the Amazon page.--Rmky87 06:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the one about "Good guys still wear black"? I'm not sure what your comment is referring to. The 24th result of the Google search mentioned? --DocumentN (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: One thing to watch for (in this and other articles) is a link on the "What links here" pages to the Magazine or Reference library for the project. In this case, there's one linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Newtype USA/2003, which means there is at least some coverage of this topic in that issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: I have seen all the episodes of Big O and something keeps on getting me, how old is Roger Smith? I have heard that he 25, 30, and 40. He helped Gordon Rosewater rebuild Paradigm after the Event(as seen in picture I think form episode 25) which means he must be old. He doesn't have gray hair. Could date Dorothy. Around episode 13 and 14, his flash back suggested that he was poor 40 years ago and the same age that he is now. Also, is the real Roger Smith an actor? Big O was a comic on the back of a newspaper and it was a play. Another thing is Roger being an android. His he? There was a mass production of Roger's in episode 26. Tell me what you think.--RogerSmith026 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Android bits were symbolism (not 'symbology'). The original Roger Smith was a Negotiator who assisted with the founding of Paradigm city, right? Well, there were a series of experiments to re-produce Roger Smith by infusing various children with Smith's memories (The whole tomato discussion).   One of the experiments succeeded, producing a new Roger Smith. The Flashback scenes were all in his head while he was unconscious, the entire scenario the result of the implanted memory.
Long story short: Roger Smith is Jesus. Not Catholic Jesus, not South Baptism Jesus, no, not even Raptor Jesus. He's GNOSTIC Jesus. Yay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.176.185.207 (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I thought Roger turned out to not be one of the tomatoes? Although that would only muddy the waters even more. 86.149.123.70 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Really, the article should mention tomatoes somewhere.68.94.200.208 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Smith 

message: Sorry, the reviewer forgot to put the tag on the candidates page. Wiki-newbie 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Squilibob? --SidiLemine 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to comb over the article again. If someone wants to review the GA nom then that would be great. --Squilibob 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the article meets all GA criteria, and all objections have been actioned. So I hereby declare this article a Good Article, until it reaches FA status, or until fanboy additions make it unreadeable. Congrats everyone!--SidiLemine 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This article has been RhynChecked and found to be clear of deadlinks! :D Rhynri 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold (hang on!)

message: :This article has been RhynChecked and found to be clear of deadlinks! :D Rhynri 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RhynCheck Clear

message: I don't think this page means that Wikipedia considers all FreeWebs pages spam.  FreeWebs is just a free web host like Geocities or Tripod.  Besides, many other sites are listed here that are not necessarily spam, such as YouTube, Angelfire, FreeBSD.org, and Yahoo Groups.  --SteveA026 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but I'm not taking any chances. When I nominate this article for Featured status, I want to make sure it gets promoted on the first try. And besides, it's not like the "Season 3 FAQ" offers any worth noting information (not already covered in the article)--Nohansen 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, fine.  Given the amount of information in the article, the same could be said about the other two fansites (oddly, one has a description and the other doesn't), but you're the boss.  --SteveA026 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FreeWebs Spam? 

message: Does anyone know if there is going to be a re-release of the second season boxed set like the new Anime Legends release of season one? Argel1200 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Amazon it's coming out August 21st. Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-release of  season 2 boxed set? 

message: Behold! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now we need to incorporate these into The Big O episodes. -Babelious 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask, and ye shall receive 

message: Anyone know why the sentence mentioning Super Robot Wars Destiny and Sunrise World War was removed in this edit? --DocumentN (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the section is named "Adaptations" and neither Super Robot Wars Destiny or Sunrise World War are adaptations of The Big O or based on it. The are (loosely) related media.--Nohansen (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, the manga series can't really be an adaptation of the anime either, if it was produced in parallel and has a completely different plot. Maybe the section should be called "Other media"? --DocumentN (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The manga was created based on the creators' (Sato, Katayama and Konaka) ideas and published early to build up interest in the TV series. It says so on the back of the book, too ("In this comic adaptation of the cartoon series"). The manga and the novel are based on the series, while those videogames are separate franchises; it doesn't seem right to lump them together. Maybe a separate section for "Media" could do (like in Giant Robo OVA).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohansen (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video games 

message: Like I said in WT:MOS-AM, no one but AnmaFinotera has objected to the way this article is organized. Others users have agreed the MoS is just a guideline and formatting that doesn't exactly fit into the current MoS is fine as long as it still follows the spirit of WP:MOS-AM. In addition, AnmaFinotera's attempt of bringing the article in line with the MoS damaged the way the information is organized. Since I never intended to use the "Media" section the same way other articles use it, the prose seems clunky and doesn't flow any better.
Furthermore, I "proposed" a change based on my experience editing articles. If the layout I propose (or some reasonable facsimile) is the layout the editors involved in the discussion prefer, it won't be expected of anyone else to follow it to the letter. Articles that look like what this article looked like before my most recent edit won't have to change because Animanga Manual of Style says so. The MoS is a list of recommendations. The MoS is flexible. The MoS is a guideline, not policy.
If AnmaFinotera, or anyone else, has any issues with the way this article is organized, please bring it up in the talk page first. I know I don't WP:OWN this article, but I've maintained it to the very best of my abilities since it made GA. If you're going to argue for a change, please bring an argument other than "follow the MOS". Because, to quote Juhachi, "using the oh well, here's the MOS, so there argument is cheap".
I don't willfully ignore the guidelines. I knowingly work within them to achieve the best work possible... even if it means veering from them just a little.
Ignore all rules: always a policy and one of the five pillars. Thank you.--Nohansen (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, rather than actually just waiting for the MoS discussion to actually finish, you'll just keep edit waring (which multiple people chastized you for, along with refusing to let the discussion continue and continuing to do your own thing). This layout, quite frankly, sucks and I find your refusal to accept that your own personal egotistical love of your own version is not a valid reason to disregard the MoS rather disturbing. Yes, the article needs to follow the MoS, and that is a valid argument. This article will never be FA (but then again, no article you have worked on ever has made it that far). We all get that you hate the MoS or not (which is not blatantly obvious you do since you repeatedly and willfully dismiss it as nothing of value at all). Your reverting and refusal to even allow actual discussion to finish shows that you do willfully ignore them for no real reason but your own tastes. IAR doesn't apply, nor does FIVE. There is no reason for this but ego. I will wait for the MoS discussion to finish before reverting again since there have been enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AnmaFinotera, need I remind you that saying a certain layout flat out "sucks" is merely your point of view, and is a very poor way to argue any point on Wikipedia, and even hurts your other arguments. Further, saying an article like this can't get to FA is being pretentious of you, especially since this is already a GA. You continuously make claims that Nohansen "hates the MOS" and that he is "owning" articles, which does not help in the civility of any argument you try to make. Further, Nohansen is completely right in that you are the only one to really oppose Nohansen in the way he may format an article, and I might add you are apart of a very few editors who take guidelines like the MOS as policy, saying such things as "violating", which is completely ludicrous since you can't violate a suggestion. Like it or not, WP:IAR is an official policy, and it's there for circumstances like this which end up obstructing the editing process. Think of all that could have been avoided if you had discussed it first after a conflict was apparent, either here or at the MOS page. Finally, you can't make statements like "the article needs to follow the MoS" because it goes against the definition of a guideline; don't take guidelines as policy, I can't stress this enough to you.--十八 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't pretentious, it is based on my experience in both FAC and FLC, which neither of you seem to have. No one has supported changing the MoS to Nohansen's version either. You can violate a guideline, like it or not. If guidelines are completely useless and not anything anyone has to follow, why do we have WP:MOS and why is it used to determine if an article is GA or FA? Same thing, just a guideline, so who cares about date formatting, numbers, grammar, etc. All that is guideline. So is RS for that matter, so why do we follow it? Hell, there are only a handful of actual policies on Wikipedia, but that doesn't automatically mean every last guideline can just be ignored under claims of IAR. All the notability standards are "guidelines" yet articles are deleted because they don't meet them. So stop acting like guidelines are just little nothings we can ignore for no other reason that personal taste (which is all this really boils down to, Nohansen decided he didn't like the MoS arrangement and made his own and uses it because he likes it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you make some good points, but let me ask you this: Before we even had a WP:MOS-AM, did we have GA and FA anime/manga articles? Yes, we did, which means we were able to function well without them just fine. The mere fact that we have an MOS now is merely to streamline the editing process and make it run more smoothly, but it's not like we were running around like chickens with our heads cut off before WP:MOS-AM was established. And, you judge too soon. About a year ago I was heavily involved with WP:FLC.--十八 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reversing the question, how many would pass a GAR or FAR today, which both have much stronger criteria than they did when those were passed? So far, I think maybe one has, out of what, 10 I've sent there myself (haven't kept count)? And considering we only have four FA articles, one of which is about to be delisted, that really isn't saying much to say we had some before the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: An image used in this article, File:Paradigm City.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Paradigm City.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Animefringe review:
Ex overview (archive):
--Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Big O. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animejump.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?go=features%2Fbig-o%2Fkonaka
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207103143/http://www.ex.org/5.3/51-cd_bigo.html to http://www.ex.org/5.3/51-cd_bigo.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfjazz.org/news/2006/2006_may_17.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animejump.com/index.php?module=prodreviews&func=showcontent&id=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200441/http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/157.php to http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/157.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104074905/http://www.dvdvisionjapan.com/bigo.htm to http://www.dvdvisionjapan.com/bigo.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/screen/sfw6829.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue351/anime.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified