Talk:Blood+/Archive 1

message: Don't get too worked up about character name spelling. It's just a Saturday evening cartoon. Most guys in Production I.G. can't spell anyway. --GoogleMonkey 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellings 

message: Do you think her total personality switch in her memories and in the serialisation (compared to the movie) merits a mention? She was a total bitch before and now she is docile and happy go lucky, she also seems alot less intelligent/independant.
I personally think this was to allow for her to have friends/family and won't be explained anywhere in the storyline also to make her more likable but almost certainly to introduce hagi as a romance intrest.
While reading this I looked it up, and it's an alternate universe :S someone should put that in the article...
But still in the "other universe" she didn't need her own blood to cut up the vampires. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowen Bayley (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read that this series is an alternate universe? 
As far as I'm concerned, this docile nature of Saya compared to the no-shit can do attitude of her movie counterpart can be simply explained by saying that she's been "dormant" all these years, and being with a surrogate family imprinted her with a more emphatic, and seemingly weaker personality.--Chicbicyclist 13:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saya's Personality 

message: To anyone editing the article, please refrain from posting spoilers when you add the summary to your edit. Thanks.--Chicbicyclist 04:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers in article history 

message: A recent addition to Hagi's description questions the immortality of Chevaliers. While it certainly seemed that way in episode 28, from what he said at the end of the episode 30, it seems like he may simply leave Saya after it is all over and not die. Does anyone have any comments with regards to this? Alternatively, if it's true that chevaliers are (or are not) immortal, the attribute should be appended in the chiropteran section and not here, as we currently do not have any information that distinguishes Hagi from the other Chevaliers (except Riku, who was able to hear Diva's song prior to becoming a Chevalier himself per the events in the Vietnam arc). -- Remy Suen 12:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the addition, and I admit, I did that posthaste. I just assumed that it was his immortality they are talking about since he implied that Riku would be there far longer than he ever could, and the fact that Chevaliers stop aging the moment they become one. As for the distinguishing feature, I would think that his bandaged-covered hand is one of them. Other chevaliers are capable of becoming "chiropteran"-like and back to humans, yet Hagi's hands remain chiropteran.--Chicbicyclist 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the note about the Chiropteran flesh, is Karl's hand made of Chiropteran flesh? I don't really remember the scenes in the Vietnam arc, but at the end of episode 30, Solomon asks Karl about his hand, which seemed to imply that Amshel/Anshel was able to revert the process thanks to his research? -- Remy Suen 10:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevalier's immortality 

message: I think the article should either add an image of Saya (and possibly some other important characters or other images) or just leave the main one in the infobox only and remove Kai's. The article seems really weird with a bunch of text, then Kai, then another whole load of text. I don't think that this makes it flow very well. -- Remy Suen 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Really, it is. besides, all the romanizations are in-line with logic, and the kana was well-noted. The authors also make it clear that there are several acccepted spellings. -Biokinetica 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansub's all we got 

message: I added a reference image of the Schiff if that's alright. -Biokinetica 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schiff 

message: Okay guys, I think this article needs some serious editing, chopping, axing, etc. now. There is just too much information. The character section,k especially might need to go into its own article. A summary of the main characters(those that recur in more than one arc, especially) could remain. Removal of some of the characters that only appeared in one or two episodes might be in order as well. --Chicbicyclist 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Culling 

message: I am just wondering who is the reporter that asks "von" the question in the last eps when he is arrested. He looks like solomon or is it the other guy? If that is the case, is Diva really dead? Yes Saya cuts Diva but she also cuts solomon and the other guy who asked Saya to kill him but seriously that reporter looks alot like ""!  Am I seeing things? lol
I also like to express my disapproval of the ending! I was crying! My God! 30 years? Kai will be 46! That picture is just wrong!
The timeline is very nice!
:See Talk:List_of_Blood+_characters#Nathan. Oh, and Diva is dead - she crystallizes. --Eruhildo 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There might be spoiller here 

message: "This Week's Top Page is dedicated to Junichi Fujisaku's Blood+, premiering in the USA on March 10 on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim."
Found that on their official site.
I googled for Blood Plus to see what it was, after seeing it listed on the DirectTV thing, coming on the Cartoon Network at 11:30pm central time.
Lot of information about the creator here http://www.production-ig.com/contents/works_sp/20_/s08_/000223.html and other stuff about the series on that website.
Just thought I'd clear stuff up, since the artical as of now isn't diffinate about its airing.
Dream Focus 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon Network 

message: Aren't OSTs worthy of providing some more information about them? Probably track listing?
Or maybe that's excessive for this particular article?
--SayaMan 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. Though I'm not quite sure how to do it in a way that looks good. I thought about doing the way Bleach is done, but that might look weird here. Maybe we should create a List of Blood+ media page? --Eruhildo 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, i've done that for Bleach Drama CD, probably that way is appropriate? I'm not so good with wiki tables to construct one of my own, but i think we may use something as a model. --SayaMan 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a go at it on my user page, but didn't know what to do with the Image Album (Hagi Plays Bach). I don't know anything about wikitables so I avoided them altogether. Also, I don't have the release dates or lengths of the OSTs so that data is missing. --Eruhildo 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, is there any use of making a separate page for media? Or maybe even a separate page for each disk the way it's done for opening and ending theme songs?--SayaMan 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you have enough information to justify separate article pages for each disk, it's better to stick with making just one article containing everything. That way you won't have to deal with Merge issues and stub claims in the future. Fox816 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I've added detailed info on Blood+ OSTs. Also thought to add some album infobox, but apparently I'm not quite sure what to do about the images, whether it's ok to use at least 3 cover images at once. Anyways couldn't figure out how to use wikimedia commons. Need some sleep at last, I guess ;) --SayaMan 07:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tables you made are awesome. I added a cell at the top of each for the data that came before each table. I thought would look a little more concise that way. --Eruhildo 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  cool! I think  that really looks more "wikipedic" ;) I'll add info on Compilation later on of nobody does it before. )--SayaMan 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OST Info 

message: Is it really necessary to have a timeline to this article?  That's more in-universe than regular prose. KyuuA4 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really necessary, but I think it's useful to have here. --Eruhildo 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to use prose.  Summarize this timeline, to describe the plot of the story. KyuuA4 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A timeline is a nice thing, as far as I can see it's partly taken from blood+ official website, isn't it? But it states that Karl became Diva's Chevalier in 1939 which is not true, because they showed a photo with Solomon, Diva and Carl dated 8.11.1920. Then there is the date when Haji appeared at the Zoo - 1863. How do we know that? We only know that Haji appeared there after Joel became aware of the special properties of Saya's blood, he made a record in his diary in 1863. But that doesn't mean Haji appeared there immediately after. In fact japanese wiki states that Haji turned Chevalier when he was 21 years old (I have no idea where they found that information), that makes 1862 the year of his birth, and 1874 the year of his appearance at the Zoo. What do you think? I feel that it's probably worth of clarifying.--SayaMan 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the timeline is from the official site. But some parts were left out (like Haji arrived at the Zoo in 1970 at age 12). Since the English sites don't have this and I think some of the data may not be in the anime, I think it would be good to include it in the article once all the facts are right. I'll spend some time translating it this week to fill in the holes. --Eruhildo 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished translating the timeline and merging it with the old one. It's here. Feel free to edit it and discuss it on the talk page. When it's done, I'll add it back to the article. --Eruhildo 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Timeline 

message: I've just came across some citation from ep.12. There Julia says that the special property  of Saya's blood that allows to crystallize chiropterans' blood is available only during battle.
That's why they couldn't take Saya's blood in advance and needed herself to fight Chiropterans. Was that just some instant reasoning for people who don't necessarily need to know everything or a plot hole? I mean, we've seen many examples when Saya's blood kills Chiroptarans regardless of whether she is in state of battle or not. I don't know how to write about that. :\  --SayaMan 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a slight contradiction but possibly it may be that her blood is potent only when she is in an active or excited state. If she lay dormant during hibernation then extracting her blood or creating a derivative of it would be useless since there are not active components. That's all just my interpretation of it though. It probably would be best to omit the information or paraphrase it as is taken straight from the series. Fox816 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, her eyes do turn bright red when she goes into "battle mode". Maybe that has something to do with it - though I think it was probably just a plot hole. Probably best to just overlook it. --Eruhildo 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, i agree, it's better to omit it. Besides her blood killed Irene quite efficiently though her 'battle mode' was already off. And the babies' (Diva and Saya's) blood crystallized each other quite well too. No battle mode then.--SayaMan 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saya's Blood properties 

message: Does any else think the word Chevalier should link to Chiroptera (anime)#Chevaliers instead of what it does now, since we're always referring to that specific type of chevalier? --Eruhildo 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i really think that it should link to both at least. But maybe specifically from Blood+ pages it should lead to chiropteran chevalier. And have some disambiguation at the top of the page:) --SayaMan 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevalier links 

message: It says on the article there is a rumor for another season in Japan.  Does anyone have a source to prove this or is it just wishful thinking?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.138.130 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may just be a rumor - I can't find anything on it. --Eruhildo 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Rumors shouldn't be included unless there is a reliable official source to cite it. Fox816 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed New Season 

message: Isn't Chiroptera the plural of Chiropteran? Or does the English version use "Chiropterans"? I thought it would be good to clarify this. --Eruhildo 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dub uses Chiropterans. Fox816 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropterans? 

message: I have noticed that Eureka 7 and Ouran High Host Club share the same art style does anyone know which studio animates these shows? --Bushido Brown 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is Production I.G. acredited as being the studio behind Blood+ Bushido Brown 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BONES is a Japanese company. They animated it, then IG brought it over here and translated it, or something like that. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Production I.G created the story, did animation, and produced the series (see their official site). Bones did tweening for episode 8, according to ANN at least. --SilentAria talk 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're right. I didn't realize I.G. was in Japan too. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual similarity to other Anime 

message: I've been thinking for a while that maybe we should create an article on Red Shield. There should be enough data (I think) from the series and the movie to make one. I don't have enough time or writing ability to do it myself, but I thought someone else might be interested. --Eruhildo 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Red Shield does not need its own article.  It does not meet WP:FICT and would violate WP:PLOT and get AfDed. Its section in this article and in the List of characters article is more than sufficient. AnmaFinotera 08:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Shield 

message: Shouldn't there be a section in the article to discuss its relation to Blood The Last Vampire and the differences between the two?  That article refers to Blood+ as an "alternative universe" version.  Shouldn't something here also discuss if that is the case, connections, etc? AnmaFinotera 08:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something brief in the plot section or near the beginning, but some of that belongs in the chacters article (Saya, David, and Lewis). A lot of it is discussed in Chiroptera (anime)#In Blood: The Last Vampire and related media, though probably not the best place to have it. --Eruhildo 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood TLV 

message: Simple question, is it Weekly Shonen Jump? Uzumaki Dude 05:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is what? AnmaFinotera 05:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's an anime series - the manga were adaptations and all the magazines they were serialized in are listed in the article. --Eruhildo 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Shouldn't the Japanese tag be placed at the bottom of the page, rather than the top? I don't recall seeing any other articles in the main namespace with the Japanese tag at the top of the page. --Dinoguy1000 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent consensus I saw said that it is more appropriate to have it at the top, though many older articles have not been updated to reflect this.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Could I get a link to the policy page for this? --Dinoguy1000 19:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no policy pages related to template messages and the like.  There was a small consensus on the tag's talk page Template talk:Contains Japanese text.  In placing it at the top, I also considered the usual Wikipedia system of putting other informational type templates (like disambig, redirect, etc) at the top and found no actual discussion to support having it at the bottom.  As the text applies to the entire article, it makes more sense to warn people at the than to wait till they've gotten all the way to the bottom to say "oh, yeah, there was Japanese text in there." :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, thanks for clarifying. Now that I look around, there's a similar discussion on a couple of the other related templates, too. --Dinoguy1000 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese tag 

message: Merge it. At best it'll only add several more sentences to this article. That's better than navigating to another page just to find the same thing. As far as images go, not really necessary. Popularity of that section of the franchise isn't high enough to justify adding it in. Fox816 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and tagged as such over there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on keeping the art box, though may need reducing for fair use.  Will check and fix if needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you did well on the merge. It makes for a much more linear article. HeavenlyEire (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood+ Video Game article merge 

message: At first I was thinking it would be good to have all the manga, etc. listed in the infobox, but now it looks too long to me. All that info is covered in their appropriate sections isn't it? Do we really need it all in the infobox? --Eruhildo (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather long, in part because of the multiple manga/anime.  However, it was suggested as being necessary as part of the Peer Review if we hope for GA one day.  Hopefully with some additional fleshing out of the article, it will look a little better. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'd rather it be long if it means getting GA. ^_^ --Eruhildo (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and me too :)  Just glad one of the official sites had it in a usable form :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Well minor I wonder if the makers of the series got some ideas for the series from the Rothschild Family.
To note I'm aware this isn't a forum or place for original research, but the term "Red Shield", and the fact the family which controls Red Shield is a financing and banking family seem all a bit eerie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.49.29 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article used to have that in there, but it was removed for being unreferenced. If we had a reference stating that, we could put it back in. I agree that the connection is obvious (after all, even the chevaliers' names are the same), but it hasn't been officially stated yet. T_T Maybe some day... --Eruhildo (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: I've noticed that in the Japanese version of the series Delta 67 is called . In other words, it's not "Delta Sixty-Seven" but "Delta Six Seven". I was wondering if we could include a note about this in the article? I don't know what the English version calls it, but my guess is it's said the way it looks. Is that true? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...in the anime, as I recall, they say 67, but if the original Japanese is 6 7 then we should include a note in that, then wait to see what the novels and manga use for the final decision on which to use consistently. I'm about to order the first manga volume, but I suspect the Delta agent won't show up for a few volumes yet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's important enough to note whether the dub pronounces it "six-seven" or "sixty-seven"; it's a pretty minor thing, and situations where digits are read individually instead of as a single unit aren't uncommon.  —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember pretty clearly David always calling it "Delta Six Seven", which I attributed to some sort of military background, given that the substance is abbreviated D67. Adding to that, I seem to recall at least one occasion where another character called it "Delta Sixty-Seven". However, as TangentCube states, it's probably hardly worth noting. —Dinoguy1000 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kai called it D sixty-seven, of course at the time he had no idea what it was and lacked a military background to see it read as Delta 6 7 Fokkerfanjet (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta 67 

message: I picked up the first volume of the manga today and read it. Looks like the manga has made quite a few changes from the anime, including possibly adding a new chevalier for Diva named Charles (I can't tell though, if its Karl using another name).  Will have to read more volumes before we know for sure.  It also has a preview of the first novel, which looks like it will be closer to the novel series. Meanwhile, I've converted the manga section to use the graphic novel template. I suspect they will need to go to their own list once all the summaries are in place, but for now it can stay there. I'll try to add in the vol 1 summary later this week, and get the Japanese ISBN's from Amazon.co.jp. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime vs Manga vs Novels 

message: It looks like this hasn't actually been discussed on any of the three articles, and with the current regular changing (and reverting) by the anon user, I think it would be good to talk this out and reach a consensus for consistency and to help with the back and forth on the spellings. So let's figure out which spelling of Haji's name would be the best to use in the article.  
Here's my attempt to sum up the reasons for each use, as best as I can figure out, to get it started:
Haji - official spelling in English release of the anime, used on Adult Swim's web site for the show, proper reading of the katana, seems to be the more used spelling in many places from a google search
Hagi - spelling given on Production I.G.'s official english site for the show, spelling used on Sony's web site for the show, and it seems to be the spelling that will be used in English versions of manga and novel adaptations per Dark Horse's web site
Did I miss any points?  Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't agree with the user reverting w/o talking about it, I did, up to this point, think it was Hagi, but UI've never had a problem with Haji, either.  Since both are used I would probably go with Hagi per what AnmaFinotera said about it becoming the official english spelling, however, its a good point that there are more links to Haji, so maybe it should be that way.  As you can see I can't really make up my mind.  Neither spelling bothers me, but it should be uniform...one way or the other. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is naturally very confusing due to the fact that even in the Closed Captioning for the English-dubbed episodes on Adult Swim, the spelling vacillates between "Hagi" and "Haji." In fact, some characters pronounce the name differently. Anyway, regarding the spelling in the article, I agree with Blizzard Beast - the note at the end of the character article should suffice. (But maybe the note could be at the top for further clarity?) HeavenlyEire (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common spelling should be used, which is currently "Haji". I would link to that policy/guideline, but I can't remember where I saw it. However, under "Hagi Plays J.S. Bach" only "Hagi" should be used for clarity. I agree with HeavenlyEire that the note on spelling in the character article should probably be near the top, but I can't see a good way to do it and still make the article flow well. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If provided you only have to look at the ending credits to the anime for the official spelling. It's Wiki Policy to use the common name, which in this instance it has been noted to be Haji. Considering the whole article is centralized on the anime, whatever official titles and translations are given based on the anime should be used. Any others are seconday (e.g. manga, etc...) and cam be noted in the article under the main title of the character. Fox816 (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ending credits spell his name "Haji", so that's probably what should be used. --Dinoguy1000 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks like consensus is to use Haji.  The footnotes on the main and episode articles have footnotes to this affected, while on the characters list, its been noted at the top of Haji's section (though some anon has twice tried to make it a hidden comment). AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The ending credits spell his name "Hagi".  This image should speak for itself. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...looks like they can't decide how to spell it either :P  Dino, do you remember which episode you saw Haji on? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid not... I think it was from the first season, though. We could watch the credits and keep a tally or something. --Dinoguy1000 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haji/Hagi 

message: http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/7088.php - AoD review of the first box set (sticking here until I or someone else has times to put into article)
Feel free to add links to any other reviews/reception info from reliable sources that can be used to expand that section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Something that's been bugging me for a while is how "chiropteran" should best be pluralized in the articles. If we go by way of language, than its proper pluralization would be "chiroptera"; however, as I recall, the dubbed anime seems to use the term "chiropterans" (and this is the term I tend to use when editing). You may also want to have a look at this really old discussion. Along a similar vein, should "chevalier" and "queen" be capitalized, or not? —Dinoguy1000 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think chevalier, queen or chiroptera should be capitalized as they are not proper names, just identifying terms (like dog, cat, horse, etc).  For the chiroptera thing...good question! You've probably noticed I've been back and forth on it myself, but I think you are right. The dub uses chiropterans for plural, as does the manga, so that is probably what we should use. For singular, though, is it chiroptera, or chiropteran? I've seen both used, but the manga uses chiropteran. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if I'm not mistaken, the singular form would be "chiropteran", if you follow the rules of Latin concerining singular/plural forms. Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass here, since I've never actually studied Latin. =P —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ~snick snick~ I'm guessing chiropteran would also be correct. I really need to hurry up and get my hands on the first DVD set...its supposed to have some extras that would help with the production section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I was always under the impression that "Chevalier" stood for a named group, like "Schiff", but eh.  Also, "chiropteran" would be more Greek than Latin, but since the use is Anglicized, use English singluar/plural construction.  —TangentCube, Dialogues 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I've gotten the three Blood+ articles clean, but feel free to recheck, especially on the chiropteran/s one. I don't know on Blood: The Last Vampire. They are separate and I can not remember, at the moment, if they use chiropteran or chiroptera. They do not, however have chevaliers or queens, so it should probably be considered separately based on the film and its manga/novels rather than on Blood+'s AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropteran plural; Chevalier and Queen caps... 

message: Does anyone have any objections to making a Blood+ navbox? if not, I'll go ahead and create  with links to the main article (of course), the lists of episodes and characters, and to Blood: TLV, and then add it to each page. —Dinoguy1000 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would object as I feel it is unnecessary. The articles are already linked very nicely and appropriately. There are only three Blood+ articles, so a template seems very excessive. The main has proper links to the subs, and the two lists are well linked. However, it may be something to consider later, as I'm pretty sure the manga and novels will end up being broken into separate lists, as more volumes are released. The episode list will probably also end up being broken into separate season pages once all of the summaries are in place. Then it would have six and a template would be good.  So that said, I guess maybe creating it now would be fine to. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, nice about-face... ;) In any case, by your reply (and because I'm feeling a tad lazy ATM), I'll go ahead and hold off on creating the navbox for now. —Dinoguy1000 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a go at it - hope you don't mind. What do y'all think? (By the way AnmaFinotera, that's why I added those span tags, guess I should have mentioned that in the edit summary.) --Eruhildo (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me! :) And perfect timing since the edit with the span tags finally spurred me to get off my lazy behind and get those two other lists made :) My only concern is the inclusion of Blood the Last Vampire. I'm worried people will think they should go through and add BtLV info in these articles or more of BtLV's links to the template when it shouldn't. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I fixed the template to link to the new articles. It was weird - I was testing the template and all of a sudden the links weren't working right. Then I noticed you reverted my edits, so I posted here, and suddenly you split the article! It's a lot better now. TLV: Yeah, I wasn't quite sure what to do with that one. It probably should left out entirely, I guess. I did think of using two dots to separate it from the rest of the row. What do you think? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm....I'd say just take it out. While it was the basis for Blood+ being created, they have little relation beyond that and its only even mentioned really in the main article.  I've put the template on all the articles. It should be pretty stable for awhile, though once all the episode summaries are done, the episode list will probably be split into 4, but that will definitely be awhile yet :P Everything else should now be good. Unless the video games every get licensed, its unlikely we'll be able to get much more information about them, so no splits there ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Is the formatting of the text good? It's pretty easy to change the justification (center, left, right). --Eruhildo (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the formatting is fine. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No, no - that's really good, I wish I had thought of that. The linking on the title is good, but I'm worried it's not obvious enough. Maybe listing Blood+ in the Blood+ section would be good just in case? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood+ navbox? 

message: I remember part of the plot explained things about the series such as vampires existing in the past and how they became Chiropterans over generations. Where is all that? Link's Awakening (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pure fan speculation, personal opinion, and guess work. As none of it could be verified through reliable sources and none of it existed in the actual anime series, it was appropriately removed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of that did appear in one of the manga series, though I'm pretty sure it was related to TLV. I'll go through it again and add it to the other article. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was the other issue, a lot of mixing between Blood+ and TLV. Blood+ first novel is out (yay) and I have it on order, so if it has any thing discussing it, I will add it to the article somewhere. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to all the backstory that used to be in the plot section? 

message: The article states that “a chevalier can also be killed by beheading or burning their whole body,″ yet in episode 49 Amshel is strucked by lighting just to attack Saya again later on. I would assume that strucking by lightingis a way of burning ones whole body. Also I don't remember any other refference which would point out that chevalier may be killed by burning. Can anyone somehow verify it and/or fix the article? Mina86 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amshel specifically says that chevaliers may be killed by burning either in ep 49 while talking with/taunting Haji. It was the "ironic" foreshadowing to his then being impaled on the pole and struck by lightening). Until set 2 comes out, I can't give the specific time ref though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning chevaliers 

message: Dark Horse is releasing something called Blood+ Chevalier's Handbook by Kazuhisa Fujie in September. I can not find anything about it, though, if its a reprint of the Blood+ Encyclopedia, or some other work? Anyone seen this mentioned in any RS elsewhere? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an unofficial guidebook. 05:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been delisted now, so I'm guessing it was not done after all -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book 

message: Was Blood+ only shown on Adult Swim? If this is the case, it was not shown on Cartoon Network. Adult Swim is its own entity that falls under Cartoon Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adult Swim is not a channel nor network, it is a programming block. Stop vandalizing the article and stop using articles to attack other editors. And sign your damn posts.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to be that Cartoon Network is the correct identification, both of you please stop edit warring on the page. SallyFord, if you're actually interested in changing the consensus, please continue this discussion here rather than reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, politically correct, it falls on Cartoon Network and not on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. ax (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: AnmaFinotera, you are wrong. AS started as a programming block on CN but that was changed in 2005, as indicated in the Adult Swim article. That article states that AS "shares channel space with Cartoon Network" and that "on March 28, 2005, Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting split Adult Swim from Cartoon Network so Nielsen Media Research could treat it as a separate channel for ratings purposes." The cite in the article is: Adult Swim/CN Split Cements Strategy. AnimeNewsNetwork also reports that "the split will see two separate networks, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, carried on the same cable channels at different times of the day." in Adult Swim to Split from Cartoon Network. So AS is not part of CN. Argel1200 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not. Adult swim is still a programming block. Per Adult Swim's own website, they are not a separate network. Per actual reliable 2009 articles, not 2005 ones, Adult Swim is still a programming block on Cartoon network. It is NOT a separate network, it was, as stated in the actual articles, a technical split to have the ratings measured separately. Whether they want to call it "sharing a channel space", it is still a programming block. The appropriate identification is what is stated, it airs in the Adult Swim programming block on the Cartoon Network. If Adult Swim ever gets its own actual channel and becomes a truly separate entity, then it can say just Adult Swim. The reliable sources that still clearly call it "Cartoon Network's Adult Swim" are what we go by, not another Wikipedia article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that on the AS website? I'm looking around and see no mention of CN (though maybe the flash is killing my machine). Argel1200 (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAQ specifically states that they are not their own channel yet. The trademarks info notes that all are owned by Cartoon Network, and the terms of use all speak to Cartoon network. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So? The FAQ does not say they are part of CN. And even if the trademarks are owned by CN that doesn't preclude AS from being a separate channel/network -- bets on whether History International trademarks are owned by the History channel? We're getting into subsidiaries, etc. at this point. Where's the reliable source that says the two were merged back together? As far as I can tell ratings are still being reported separately for each, ergo they are a separate network. The FAQ is intermingling channel and network, when only one is true -- I think what they mean to say is that they are a separate network but are airing on the CN channel. The FAQ is not really a reliable source considering the aforementioned intermingling of terms. I still have not seen anything to indicate that CN is correct and AS is incorrect. All the evidence suggests the opposite. Argel1200 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Google News, search "Adult Swim" "Cartoon Network" - vast majority of the sources state "Cartoon Network's Adult Swim" with only a few saying they "share channel space". Ratings being reported separately does NOT make them separate channels. Adult Swim itself does not say it is not part of Cartoon Network, while clearly indicating that they are on their website (if it were a subsidiary, then those pages would state so). The New York times even calls it the "late night shift" of the Cartoon Network. Recent press release about a new collaboration The fact is, we could both sit here and throw out sources saying one or the other. However, reality is is that consensus both here and in other places have agreed that it is still a programming block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, and I can produce just as many, and more, that say otherwise. You can disagree all you like, but you have not proved anything one way or another. Different reliable sources say different things, and another Wiki article (which is barely edited, FYI) is not a valid bit of evidence one way or the other. Go read the archives, I'm not going to hunt them down for you. Again, some reliable sources say they are the same, some say they are separate. In actual reality, it is clearly a programming block and not a separate channel. The cable/satellite systems do not list an "Adult Swim" channel, they list only Cartoon Network anywhere. Being separate brands does not make them separate companies. There are a ton of Hershey brand products, but they are all still part of the Hershey company. Unless and until actual current reliable sources agree it is a truly separate network, which is unlikely to happen unless they actually got their own channel, the show aired on Cartoon Network. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as I have repeatedly shown, the ratings for CN and AS are listed separately. So saying it aired on CN is erroneous because the ratings for it are based on AS's ratings, not CN. Also, I have looked on this talk page and the archives, the AS talk page and archives, and the CN talk page and archives and I can find no discussion leading to a consensus. If you are goign to continue to claim consensus then I think you need to be able to link to the discussion. Argel1200 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest I can find to a discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cartoon_Network/Adult_Swim#Adult_Swim. However, that deals with the scope of some projects and didn't realy address the CN vs. AS issue. Does anyone know of a discussion that does? Argel1200 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Interesting...you don't bother asking the project or for 30 first, you just jump straight to a Mediation Cabal and make a bunch of false personal attacks? You also are falsely claiming that your edit is being classified as vandalism. I classified it as vandalism ONCE, then you started a discussion. Do not blame me because another editor did so as well. I have requested input from the actual project instead. Reliable sources about Blood+ alternately state both Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. The rest is all OR and not an issue for this talk page at all. As it is, anyone actually watching the series when it was broadcast saw it broadcast on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block, and did not change to another channel or see their channel identification on their television stations change. As for consensus, even the Adult Swim task force calls it a programming block -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not as familiar with WP, so I went to the help pages and the sections on resolving editing disputes. Informal mediation sounded good. If there are other processes to follow then they should be documented better (never heard of "for 30 first"). Well, not just documented better, but linked to better -- i.e. easier to find, easier to use, etc. Heck, I updated the submission form on MedCab because even it wasn't very clear! Quite frankly, WP is ridiculously hard to navigate when it comes to trying to figure out the "correct" process, so I did the best I could. What was I going to do -- ask you for how I should proceed? You still refuse to link to the discussion that reached a consensus on the subject of whether they are separate networks or not (or more importantly, if there has been a discussion of the more general subject).  Regarding false accusations, reverything I said is based on howw I have percieved events so I do not consider them to be false. Regarding "vandalism", when DylanIloveYou first reverted my edit it was described as "vandalism" in the comment. We discussed this on our talk pages and she agreed that it was in fact a good faith edit and she undid the revert. You then reverted it back saying "no, your edit was correct". Well, the reason given for the original revert was vandalism so when you say the original revert was correct you are in-effect saying you agree with the justification for the original revert -- i.e. that my edit was vandalism. You could have said something like "rv, editing dispute" instead. Whether it is a programming block or channel sharing is subject to interpretation. You favor calling it a programming block. However, the industry favors treating them as separate networks and brands (required by Nielsen Ratings to be treated as a separate network). Way back when Nickelodeon started this with the Nick at Night split, this was controversial. But several years later, we can look back and see that the Industry has gone along with it -- Nielsen Ratings didn't back off, there have been other splits such as CN and AS, etc. As for the AS task force, it's not very persuasive, especially considering that the scope of that project does not even cover Anime! If that talk page is your basis for a consensus on this issue then I'm not seeing it -- the CN vs. AS thing came up tangentially but was not directly addressed (it seemed more about how to divide things up between task forces, deal with scope issues, etc. and not really about CN vs. AS). Argel1200 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm...how many of the RSes sited are post technical split announcement? Those are the only ones that should be used as anything pre-technical split will obviously call it the "Cartoon Network's Adult Swin". That's all i have to say on that.陣内Jinnai 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The media still intermingles the names. However, Turner Broadcasting treats them as separate brands (have to for Nielsen Ratings), DVDs and Blu-Rays of Anime aired on AS are marketed as such (i.e. that they aired on AS, not CN), and if someone wants to do additional research on ratings then they need to look for the Adult Swim numbers. Specifying CN is ambiguous  -- did it air on CN, AS as a programming block of CN, or AS after the spilt? Not to mention that it can confuse CN viewers who associate CN with "safe for younger viewers" because CN and AS are separate brands. So listing AS as the network is overall less confusing than CN. On the other hand, the reporting/news media does confuse things by intermingling the names. However,  that confusion is easily dispelled by visiting the Adult Swim article which explains the channel sharing and history. So for me the deciding factors are: AS is more accurate (e.g. for research purposes), AS is aligned with how the Industry is treating this subject (i.e. they are considered separate networks), CN and AS are two separate brands (have to be for Nielsen Rating to consider them separate networks), and any confusion about CN vs. AS is easily addressed just by reading the AS WP article while the reverse may not be the case (depends on the article, any special circumstances, etc.). Argel1200 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Other Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where am I using that as a reliable source? I'm just saying that if we listed AS as the channel that any confusion over AS and CN can be resolved reading the AS article. Which is another way of saying that that is where it should be resolved -- i.e. justifying CN over AS because of any confusion over the two is imo a moot point since it easy to adress it in the AS article. Argel1200 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: While it my be true that Adult Swim is considered separately for Nielsen ratings, that does not mean the block is its own network. The same goes true for the defunct Fox Kids block that aired the Digimon series. Nielsen ratings considered the block separately for direct comparison with Kids' WB and its Pokémon series. I am more inclined to list the parent network in the infobox as the parameter indicates. Specific programming blocks can be clarified in the article itself. Arsonal (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the requirement for separate ratings is that it has to be treated as a separate network -- as in different branding, trademarks, etc. That's what (in addition to the ratings) makes it different from a programming block. Argel1200 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, maybe a compromise would be to add a field to the TV template for the "network" the Nielsen Ratings are based on, branding, etc? I'm not sure about leaving it to the article, as most don't seem to clarify if it was before or after the split (often has to be inferred from the date) Argel1200 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article already properly handles it. The network is Cartoon Network, noted in the infobox, and it aired as part of the Adult Swim programming block, noted in the article prose. Changes to the Adult Swim articles should be discussed there, not here, and if you think its infobox needs changing, again, that goes there not here. This discussion is purely about what goes in the Blood+ article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No the article does not properly cover it. E.g. where is the mention that the Nielsen ratings are based solely on AS? If you insist on using CN then every article for Anime airing after the ratings split should be mentioning this (and I suppose the ones airing before the split probably should as well). And I don't consider it a programming block. Based on the Nielsen Ratings change it was was programming block before hand and technically a network sharing time with CN afterwards. And the infobox appears in the article (it's one of two places where CN is currently listed) which is why I mentioned it here and I mentioned it as a potential compromise -- e.g. if others thought it was an acceptable compromise then we could look into updating the template. Argel1200 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is properly covered here. This is NOT the article on Adult Swim. You have not produced a single reliable source stating anything about Blood+ SPECIFICALLY, but only Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, which are all arguments for the Adult Swim article. The infobox properly summarizes the article, and frankly what you consider it is irrelevant. This is the article for a single anime series, Blood_, not Adult Swim, not Cartoon Network. Therefore, no matter how much OR is thrown around, in the we will use specifically what sources say about this program, which is that it aired on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block.  That's all. And there is absolutely nothing here that supports doing anything to the infobox (and suffice to say, such an idea would be very likely to be shot down as pointless and excessive). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We know it aired in the AS "block", so the real question is CN vs. AS, and I have certainly presented enough links to show that e.g. Turner treats the networks separate (e.g. branding, etc.). That's not OR, that's straight from Turner's websites. We do not actually need specifics for Blood+ itself if it can be shown that AS and CN are treated as separate networks. But anyway, so you want Blood+ specific sources. How about some of the official US websites: Adult Swim Blood+ and Sony's DVD page. I don't see the point in arguing on the AS page -- I mean, I would just expect you to at some point say that it needs to be discsussed on the project page. Argel1200 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: As a random note...article from today from RS notes "Adult Swim, the late-night television programming block of Cartoon Network in the United States"... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network 

message: Another day, another editing dispute. AnmaFinotera keeps using 'Blood+' Anime Series on Cartoon Network as a cite for when it aired or that it aired on CN. However that article also says that "The ... Blood+ series ... is a sequel to Production I.G.'s anime feature, Blood: The Last Vampire" (em[phasis added). However, our WP article correctly states that "Blood+ was inspired by the 2000 anime film Blood: The Last Vampire". I think we should try and avoid articles that support one claim in the article but contradict another one so I would like to 1) see it removed and 2) if there is a need for more sources then a better one should be used. I don't see any reason to confuse readers with an article to covers one aspect of the article while contradicting another. It even calls into question how reliable that article is. If we need more sources then lets find better ones. Argel1200 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on my talk page, there is no valid reason to remove a reliable source because a single person thinks it is incorrect. One, the source is not a contradiction, as it could be considered a sequel (and other reliable sources have also called it that) as it did follow the film. There are many times when reliable sources may seem to contradict one another, that does not make them all unreliable. There are FA articles with sources that contradict each other if you actually look at them.  I do not see how it is confusing to the reader. ICv2 is a high quality, reliable source for anime information, and you're claim that it is somehow not reliable because it termed it a sequel is spurious and seems more like sour grapes and an excuse to continue your argument from above.  -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, okay, I get the point about contradictions, but not about a sequel. Or is it that "sequel" is determined by how it is marketed (e.g. like Please Twins is a "sequel" to Please Teacher)? Blood+ deviates too much from B:TLV to be a sequel in the strictest sense. Argel1200 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just replace "sequel" with "successor" or something. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: In the strictest sense, it is a sequel in that it is "something that follows something else". As Norse notes, they are basically using the word in the same context as "successor", as the rest of the article does not claim the story itself is a continuation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS that contradict other portions of the article