The Big O was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed May 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 16, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

Paradigm City was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 March 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Big O. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Paradigm City was copied or moved into The Big O with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/shelf-life/2017-08-14/.120059

Archives

Plot analysis Series production Article improvement discussion

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)~

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)[reply]

23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)24.199.154.18 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Regarding the lead section/introduction information (and I am desprately trying to find evidence, hence the notation here and not an edit to the article) - I am positive that in the mid-90's (I want to say 1996) is when the first thirteen Big O episodes aired in the USA, on Cartoon Networks "Toonami" in the afternoon, around 3pm CST. It aired on and off for a few months, every weekday, then vanished till the re-emergance date, which did well enough to earn the second season. So far, I have not had any luck in finding proof (even IMDB has the later date), so I've emailed Toonami directly, hoping for a reply.23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)24.199.154.18 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section has been revised, but far from complete. I'm thinking some sub-sections about the factions in Paradigm (Paradigm Corporation, the Military Police, and The Union) should be included. So, anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nohansen (talk • contribs) .

It should be noted that we don't write plot summaries in order to summarize every detail of a show. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information part 7 says: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

You might want to check out the guideline WP:WAF about this. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plot summary needs revision, it should be a summary of the show. Right now, it does not tell me anything about what the show is about.68.34.48.184 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's always room for improvement, but the plot summary (as it is) should tell you what the series is about. Forty years prior to the events of the series, disaster struck. The world was turned into a vast desert wasteland and the survivors were left without memories. The story takes place in Paradigm City, a corporate police state run by the Paradigm Corporation. [...] The first half of the series is episodic. Each [episode] revolves around different citizens of Paradigm dealing with the resurgence of lost Memories and how they manage to go on living without knowledge of what did or did not happen. And a little bit from the lead, The series follows Roger Smith, Paradigm City's top Negotiator. He provides this much needed service with the help of an android named R. Dorothy Wayneright and his butler Norman Burg. When the need arises, Roger calls upon Big O, a giant relic from the city's history that may hold the key to its future.

If you want details, you should watch the show (if you haven't already) since the Animanga Manual of Style asks for "a succinct description of the plot" while avoiding "excessive details of twists and turns in the story".--Nohansen (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to take a side here, but: List of The Big O media has brief summaries of the basic situation of each episode. Right now they're kind of vague and possibly advertisement-ish, but they could possible be improved to give a better idea of what the series is about. There's also Wikia:Anime, which currently doesn't have any Big O articles at all. --DocumentN (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (meaning, "not me") could expand the episode summaries in List of The Big O media that'd be great. Maybe then we could split the List of The Big O episodes and nominate it for WP:FLC following Sephiroth BCR 's examples.--Nohansen (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

i Particularily agree to the splitting of paradigim city its too long and if someone was lookin for something might not want an exhuberently long article--Spartan117009 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here are some problems that I have found:

Writing:

• contractions: didn't, wouldn't, doesn't, wasn't, don't, there's, it's, he'd. No more contractions.
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid: however. No more "howevers".
• User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy additives: also, more, finally. Also done.
• "40 Years" - Sentences should not start with numbers - should be "Forty years" - and should not start with "And". Did it.
• Years are wikilinked with no context. Removed wikilink.

Context:

• There is some in-universe prose - "Forty years ago" - in-universe, "Forty years before the commencement of the story" - out-universe. Correct in some places but not in others. Corrected where needed.
• "But they manage to make do and go on living, trying their hardest at a life without knowledge of what did or didn't happen." - this line could be moved out of the lead section, perhaps into plot. Worked the line into the plot, removed from lead.
• "The Big O revolves around the concept of memories" - The Big O is a character as well as the name of the show. What is "revolving around" a concept? Reword. (Like "The Big O's main theme is the concept of memories.") Reworded as suggested.
• "just like nightmares," Roger says, "can appear when you least expect them." - what episode(s) is this from? You can use that as a footnote. Is this what (Act:04) and (Act:10) refer to? It isn't clear to the reader. Changed all instances of (Act:??) to quotes.
• Reception section could be moved higher in the article. Didn't move it. I used as example Excel Saga, and now Serial Experiments Lain, and both have Reception section near the end.
• The Big O: Season One and The Big O: Season Two could just be season one and season two (lower case). Did it.
• References could be displayed in two columns. Did it, but isn't showing. Any idea why?
• "The season ends by introducing elements that will come into play during Season Two. The existence of people outside of Paradigm City. The book "Metropolis" written by Gordon Rosewater, Paradigm's founder. The World destroyed by a Cataclysm. The Power of God wielded by Man. Giant robots run amok. The truth, the lies, behind them all." - Maybe this should be all one sentence separated by semicolons. It doesn't make sense if the reader doesn't understand the context. These aren't proper sentences by themselves, join them somehow or make them bullet points. Done.
• What is "an over-reaching storyline"? Changed to "continuous."
• "These episodes move Alex Rosewater, CEO of the Paradigm Corporation, center stage as a direct antagonist to The Negotiator. It also introduces The Union, a new faction in the War of Paradigm City. In Season Two, Paradigm City becomes a grand stage where past, and future, memories play themselves out." - These sentences are narration. When text uses narration it stops being an encyclopedia article and starts being a review. Please reword. Lines such as "and started bouncing ideas off each other", "there was nothing quite like it" and "When word came the series would be shortened to 13" are also untidy. All done.
• There are quotes by themselves with no context at all. I'm not sure if that violates WP policy, but I haven't seen in on an anime article before, especially in any of our Good/Featured articles. Removed the quotes.
• city, community, pets - linked but do they add to the article by providing context? I think these words are common enough to exclude wikilinks to their articles. Removed the links.
• section headings: "The Style" section - A couple of points, wikipedia section do not ever start with "the". There should be context at the start of this section. A short sentence on what the section is about. The influences section (should just be Influences) has a line that does this but it has a problem "The similarities between Batman and The Big O are many" - how many? See User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy Rearranged the style and influences sections.
• "pastiche" needs a wikilink. Linked "pastiche"

--Squilibob 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see Madlax, Serial Experiments Lain and Planetes for good examples on how to quote episodes.--SidiLemine 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples. Now I'm done with the quotes.--Nohansen 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{main}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added the ISBN-10 number. If it matters, the ISBN-13 number is 978-4575295795. See here.--Nohansen 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #24 looks like it should be in the notes section, with the reference in cite.php and a {{ja icon}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've watched the series all the way through probably at least a half dozen times, and I think that several aspects of the show are up to interpretation. The first time I watched any Big O episodes I couldn't understand how Roger looked to be about 30 or so, but Dastun stated that they knew each other before the event 40 years ago and "flashbacks and hallucinations during the series would seem to indicate that he was a member of the military before the Event occurred, apparently holding the rank of Major." It is also "implied by Gordon Rosewater that Roger was alive before the Event and was not one of Gordon's genetically created children. Both he and Gordon refer to Roger having "lost memories" even though he appears to be in his mid twenties. Gordon specifically mentions a contract that he made with Roger prior to the Event." And the torn photograph that Gordon puts together in the last episode shows a much younger Gordon shaking hands with Roger who appears exactly the same as he did in the series. My interpretation is that Roger from the series is an android based on the negotiator that Gordon had met and worked with in his early days, I believe this is exactly what Gordon tells Roger and he then has a vision of an assembly line full of Rogers being created. All of the quoted sections here are from this wiki page: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/List_of_The_Big_O_characters

Roger worked for the military police before becoming a negotiator, it's not likely that he was ever an actual actor, rather since all of the people from Paradigm City could not remember their past they were all like actors portraying the person they think that they are- numerous characters also mention that Paradigm City is a stage, or like a stage, this is probably because the people of the city are all playing their roles. Schwarzwald was not happy with his role as a reporter, he kept digging deeper and deeper into the truth of what happened 40 years ago, so Paradigm Corporation tried to kill him- he survived but his face was severely disfigured. This is an example of what happens to people who step outside of their role. As to the comic book in the flashback, I think that it could have been some other animation (like Charlie Brown aha) but Roger couldn't remember such a minor detail, so he filled in the blank spaces in his memory with something from his subconscious mind. As to the play, I don't think that was supposed to be what really happened and that's why the faces of the audience had no details, they were solid black. I think the dialog could have been roughly the same and it would have taken place in Roger's new, actual home and not on a stage- the stage was symbolic for the city, a city where no one knows exactly who they are or where they're from so they're like actors. Akechi77 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

The tomatoes had the lost memory's of paradigm's prominent citizens not Roger Smith's. Roger's is not one of the tomatoes and his true origin is never fully explained--75.168.110.65 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the article should mention tomatoes somewhere.68.94.200.208 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

       I just have to ask, what is with the Tomatoes? Of all the episodes Ive seen (im probably missing a few) I dont think it never explained enough about the tomatoes for me to fully understand their importance, but this discussion page have given me some insight and I think the whole tomatoes thing should be explained in the main article; that is unless everyone else is as confused about the tomatoes as I am.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.8.102 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Sorry, the reviewer forgot to put the tag on the candidates page. Wiki-newbie 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Squilibob? --SidiLemine 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Wiki-newbie 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article has been RhynChecked and found to be clear of deadlinks! :D Rhynri 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this at the List of Allusions page, but I'll mention it here too. The soundtrack of The Big O! is packed full of references to other works, and I'd like to see it mentioned in the main article, if we can find citations.

The track Respect is a clear nod to the music of 60's British adventure shows like The Prisoner and Danger Man, while the theme Stand a Chance is a reworking of Vangelis' Blade Runner End Titles. Meanwhile False has more than a hint of Connery-era James Bond about it, and the main theme is, of course, a clear homage to Queen's Flash! I wouldn't know where to begin to look for references to this stuff, but it's definitely in there. Kelvingreen 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect", the second season opening, is a nod to Gerry Anderson's UFO. Watch them (UFO, Big O) and see the similarities on the music and title sequence.

See Talk:List of allusions in The Big O.

This article could use a section on the music. I added a bit on the influence of jazz and film noir but it could use something on the production, too. Maybe that could help the article get on its way to being featured.--Nohansen 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. UFO it is (it's almost identical, isn't it?). Well I wasn't far off with the 60's. Only one decade!

I'd love to get started on a music section, but frankly, there's no use saying "Respect is a nod to the UFO theme" without a citation to back it up because no matter how obvious and true it is, citations are everything around here! That said, we may be able to get away with using that quote you've used on the other talk page to cover a more general discussion of the music used. I'll have a think about it. Thanks for replying! Kelvingreen 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a small section on the music under Influences, mentioning the opening themes, as they're the most obvious examples of outside influence. I'd say we can leave the more exhaustive list to the List of allusions in The Big O page; I've made a start over there too. Kelvingreen 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to tell you this, but the theme songs are already covered in the List of The Big O media. Check the bit just before the Manga adaptation section.--Nohansen 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's room for both, especially as that's a separate article. Similarly, that article is about spin-off media, while this section is about creative influences; if anything, I'd say that the info about the musical influences belongs here rather than there, but as I say, I think there's room for both. Kelvingreen 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to Amazon it's coming out August 21st. Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behold! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now we need to incorporate these into The Big O episodes. -Babelious 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AnmaFinotera: if you could point out the issues you have with the article, rather than "drive-by tagging" it, you'd be a big help. Now:

• The article only has two images (three if you count the one in the infobox). One helps illustrate the noir style of the series, the other helps to understand the Giant Robo connection. Hardly excessive or improper.
• Over 30 sources. I don't see how it may need additional references or sources for verification.

So, what do you want? What do you need?--Nohansen (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some refs around. In X (manga)'s GA review, two editors pointed out I have a tendency of placing the ref at the beginning of the paragraph when it is preferable to place at the end (so readers know that ref sources the whole paragraph). Two images is not excessive, so long as they're not merely decoration. I could come up with more complex captions, like Serial Experiments Lain, if you'd like. I don't see how this article requires general cleanup: there are no glaring grammatical errors, refs are not broken, templates are fine, etc.

If there's anything specific, tell me and, within reason, I'll take care of it.--Nohansen (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I note on my user page, if you don't understand the tags, I'll explain them, but otherwise they are pretty obvious to me. For the images - all three are very similar, so I don't see how the either two are necessary. A visual isn't needed for the Giant Robo connection, text is fine there. The ref improve is related to the self-ref (which you didn't address), as they are not appropriate reliable sources and need to be replaced. There are also unreferenced non-plot statements and sections, which isn't acceptable for a GA article. If you need me to go through and add the appropriate inline tags where refs are needed and which sources are questionable, let me know. You already know what the clean up is for, as so far your version of articles, which violates the MoS, has yet to actually achieve consensus, so I will politely ask you to leave that tag there unless/until your version is given consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is referenced... but I'll remove the notes, if they bothers you. Text may be fine, but an image is better. I could replace it with an image that's not so similar to the "Shadowcasting" one. You could just tell me which sources you find questionable, I'll fix those too. Not right now, but soon. And on the layout: like I've said, time and time again, no one seems to mind. Only you. The MoS is guideline, it gives the leeway that policies don't. Just because the sections have different names or are organized a little bit different from the ones suggested, doesn't mean the article requires cleanup.

Honestly, I just feel like you're harassing me in an attempt to drive me mad so I'll just stop editing articles altogether. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that's how it feels.--Nohansen (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you have that impression. The MoS issues were just the first thing I'd noticed about this and the others. I intended to tag them all, and possibly start pre-GAR discussions, but got sidetracked with the MoS blow up. It may not actually help, but I honestly didn't look to see who was editing the articles before doing all three. I thought they were hold overs from an old style MoS as discussions have indicated that it has changed significantly over the last few years. As for the MoS issues, if the project doesn't valid your version, then yes, it does need to be cleaned up and redone as such an article can't be FA (and depending on the reviewer, fails GA). But thats already all been argued elsewhere and I'd rather not rehash here other than to request the tag be left until consensus is reached by the project as to whether it is okay for these articles to go against the MoS. (though no, I'm not the only one who minded, others did not it wasn't appropriate to just ignore the MoS like this).

Back to the issues at hand. The notes should either be incorporated into the article or removed all together, as they don't really add anything to the article. For the references, the ref formatting needs fixing, as several are missing stuff (though they may be intended to be notes). Questionable ones that appear to fail WP:RS (not including the pure text notes):

• 3, 33, 50 - Japan Hero, though the source says it has permission from Bandai to apparently repeat something from somewhere, the site has none of the basic identifying information and appears to be self-published

• 5, 34 - self published by someone and may violates WP:COPYRIGHT (notes indicate it may be a series writer, but is this confirmed?)

• 4, 21 - I think Anime Jump was rejected as RS in a recent PR or FLC, but let me double check

• 12 - Anime Land, missing basic information establishing credibility

• 14 - really a note, with link to the front of a site

• 15 - A Fan's View; self-published site failing all RS criteria

• 20 - OR note

• 17 - Anime Academy - non-RS, no established credibility and appears to be a fansite

• 25 - DVD Vision - personal website, non-RS, no established credibility

• 28 - note and non-RS, no established credibility

• 42 - unnecessary note that, if relevant, needs to be in the text

• 47 - Anime Meta-Review; personal, self-published website, no established credibility

• 43 - The Anime Review; self-published personal website of a fansubber; no credibility

As a side note, there are two ref 27s...may need to check them to see if there is a bug in the code somewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

• "A Fan's View" is run by Kevin Lillard. He was interviewed by Anime News Network a few years back. He's been published in Animerica, Protoculture Addicts and Newtype USA, so it meets WP:SPS.
• The World's Finest is a website hosted by Toon Zone. The Animation Studios info is plenty reliable and credible, since it comes directly from the episode credits.
• "AnimeLand" is a French monthly magazine. You can read more about it in fr:AnimeLand.
• "Anime Academy" is a nice, little website I found through Animefringe. It ranked #11 in Fringe's 2003 Top 25 Anime websites, and #3 in 2004 and 2005.
• Not many people here use "DVD Vision Japan" for reception, but reliable websites (like ANN and AnimeNation) have acknowledged the site.
• Japan Hero's interview is transcripted from the DVD release. I linked to it for the readers' convenience.
• "Anime Jump" is definitely reliable. I don't how else to put it. Konaka himself acknowledged Mike Toole of Anime Jump and thanked him for his support.
• And yes, that is Konaka's official website.
• "Meta Anime Review" was a link of convenience. Instead of linking to all of Beveridge's reviews on Anime on DVD, I linked one time to a website that had all four.
• "Anime Review" didn't like Big O's extensive use of homage and pastiche, I had to use it. If anyone knows of a review that makes similar claims, please let me know.

I won't login for the next couple of days, but I'll see if I can continue the clean up offline. The job is never done.--Nohansen (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the most obvious influence listed: Gigantor

Skaizun (talk)

Y'all may find this reference useful: http://web.archive.org/web/20010706135824/http://j-pop.com/anime/news/top10.html

It gives top-10 sales rankings of anime in the US & Japan. This is included in the list. --Gwern (contribs) 01:30 26 January 2010 (GMT)

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)[reply]

The Paradigm City page should be restored as seperate page. Like the megadues's there was enough separate information shown in the anime. The fictional cities for the Batman and Superman comics are listed on individual pages. Enough background information is revealed in the anime series to require a seperate page for Paradigm City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradigm_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradigm_City&redirect=no

174.22.9.141 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

174.22.11.30 restored the article on October 4. I reverted, citing WP:Articles for deletion/Paradigm City (March 2010). If there are no responses within a month, I will not revert again, per WP:Consensus#Consensus can change and WP:Silence and consensus. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

174.22.10.230 restored the article. Flatscan (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm city doesn't have enough information to be as a separate topic, and by that, there's not enough third-party sources covering it's importance.Lucia Black (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Batman (Gotham City) and Superman (Metropolis (comics)) comics? How are they different? They also have categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Metropolis_(comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gotham_City

174.22.10.219 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST you're comparing a Notable topic thats similar to this, but it doesn't prove to notable at all. For example Ivalice is a world set up primarily in a video game and is even better sourced than Gotham City. The Big O isn't the most popular series out there, and there's not many sources talking about Paradigm City.

Its not notable, and we should focus on the important areas of The Big O.Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the city not important? It is the setting for the anime and manga.

174.22.10.55 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An anime and manga that barely made any coverage based on just the setting. you need to think just because you think its important, doesn't mean the whole world does. The setting can be covered in the plot section. Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animefringe review:[1] Ex overview (archive):[2] --Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]