User talk:Mistiryshak

Hello and thank you for joining Megami Tensei Wiki! Whether you are here to contribute or just to read, we are glad to have you with us! If you are interested in contributing to the wiki, please take the time to read over the Code of Conduct, the Manual of Style, and our other guidelines. If you have any questions or general wiki comments, head over to our Community Portal! We hope you enjoy the wiki! Sincerely, Megami Tensei Wiki Staff

media wiki update mobile

Hi, just wanted to come in and report some issues with the recent wiki update (mainly on mobile).

1. Some ui elements are white instead of black, mainly the 'last updated' bar at the bottom of pages, the options on the side bar, and the search options when searching things. This is a big problem for the search bar because the names of the pages camouflage with the background making it impossible to see what you're looking for.

2. The primary infoboxes have a few issues. The content under the demon image (i.e. race, arcana, alignment) are no longer centred and instead are to the left, leading to the exp app info to go off the screen being unreadable. Also on a more minor note but the main names on the infoboxes are no longer bolded and there a gap between it and the Japanese name.

3. Unmade pages now show up as bold yellow instead of red making it difficult to know what has or doesn't have a page.

4. For the gameplay infoboxes, a lot of them have the issue of move names over lapping with the move description, due to being to long instead of staying in their boxes. This makes it difficult to read in both orientations of the a phone.

Sorry if that was a bit too wordy, I just wanted to make sure I cover all my basis. Thanks, and have a good day!

Thank you, I've passed this along. As a side note, please make sure to sign your talk page messages with --~~~~. Thank you :) -- Mistiryshak (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! And sorry about that, didn't know that it wouldn't automatically sign, whoops. Also wanted to let you know that I found another issue with the '|seoimage=' is not working and the search is just showing the first image of the demon page. Thanks again! --Starmine (talk) 1 April 2026 (UTC)

On Strega

Hello, I've been editing the Persona page recently and apparently caused a bit of an editing frenzy. You mentioned in your comments wanting to do more research on Strega regarding the suppressants. Check 9/7 in P3Re for a conversation between Takaya and Jin implying that they need their evokers. Shinji talks about the use of suppressants on 9/10 at the hospital.There's a few more conversations about it but those are the relevant ones. I should also note that Takaya specifically, doesn't need an evoker you can see that in his fights.

Thanks,

Cronomax (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, greatly appreciate the research! That clears things up a bit. Mistiryshak (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Medal for all the contributions regarding Giten Megami Tensei: Tokyo Revelation, specifically the skill module

For your contributions to Megami Tensei Wiki, you have been awarded a Jack Medal by Hee-Ho.

Thanks a bunch for all the help you've provided towards the GMT skill module, without it I would not have been able to add skills of the game in this wiki :D

Medal for adding SMTSJ skills

For your contributions to Megami Tensei Wiki, you have been awarded a Jack Medal by Effect-kun.

Thanks for adding the skills for Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey and for creating File:SMTSJ McClane Sprite.png earlier! -Effect-kun (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! At the moment I don't have any way to reliably get information on the enemy-only skills nor do I have plans to work on SJR skills (at the moment) but it should hopefully serve as a good starting point for further work on SJ-related data. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Where I can sent info regarding skills for GMT

Hi, I was wondering where I can sent GMT skills info since my discord account got suspended, idk if the DMs get deleted after a certain time, but hopefully they don't. Now the main topic. Where can I sent the remaining skills? That is if you feel I can continue working on it, I can even sent instructions on how to access the debug room of GMT to be able to check the info yourself. Hope you're doing well and thank you for the help.

User: Hee-Ho (talk) 23:21 , December 20th 2025

Hey there, sorry for the late response. I've been very busy thanks to the holiday season. To my knowledge the DMs won't be deleted after a while so I still have any skills you've sent since. I'd definitely like to continue working on this; you can share something like a Google Docs link if you want to send any further skills. I would like to access the GMT debug room sometime but right now I'm fairly busy with my own projects so I'm not sure when I can get around to that. Small warning; if you embed an external link sometimes the wiki may freak out and not let you. If that happens leave another message here and I'll give instructions on how to do that. Hope you're doing well as well! -- Mistiryshak (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I got really worried haha, but yeah, I'll make a document or something to continue, I'll need you to remind me which was the last skill I send, hope everything with the staff is going well.

Btw, do you know if I'm welcome in the server? I could create an alternate account but I feel it could make my suspension worse since it lasts until 2027 (or at least the infraction is). Hee-Ho (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion and the opinion of many others in the server, you're more than welcome there and we'd love to have you back. However, that said, creating a new account to get around an account suspension might get you in trouble with Discord and lead to both accounts being banned permanently, as it is explicitly against their terms of service and they have methods to identify if an account is being used by the same person. So while I would like to see you rejoin, I don't know if I can advise you to do so prematurely.  :(

By the way, the last skill you sent was ID: 270 Fuse/融合 -- Mistiryshak (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, I'll try to set up a google docs for the remaining 39 skills, we're almost done haha. And regarding that, where would I sent the google docs for the skills? User: Hee-Ho (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2025

You can just leave a link here and that should be fine, IMO. Like I said earlier if the wiki won't let you leave a message I'll let you know what to do instead. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I'll create a new topic and I set up everything with 10 additional skills, and I'll further update that topic once I add more, so hope you look forward to that. User: Hee-Ho (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2025

Whole template of the GMT skills that I send on Discord

Hi, I'm sending this message since I'd like to have the template I used for the skills in GMT for the document I'll make, but maybe it'd be best if I manually add the info in accordance with the module's structure? I'll let you decide, whatever makes work easier, since speeding up the process would be nice, I also am worried with the DMs, idk if they get deleted after a certain time, so if they do I'd appreciate if you hurry with the skills, ofc no pressure, but I just am really anxious regarding the situation lol, well, hope you're having a good night!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there! Regarding the document it's best to just use the same format you were using for now. As for the DMs, I have DMs that are years old from deleted users, so those are fine, I assure you. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I would appreciate if you could sent me the format since I don't remember some of the things that went into it. --Hee-Ho (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The format you sent me looked like this:

ID: 267 Maledict Arrow/咒言滅殺矢
Group: Normal Magic. Attribute: Forbidden.
Formula: Shooting Line/射撃系. Acquisition: ??.
Level: 32. Cost: 10 MP.
Usage Circumstances: --Battle-. Range: Area.
List Up Target: 1 enemy.
Targets: 1 enemy once.
Extra Effect: Dying. Distance: 1-4.
Special Code: 0.

Cheers -- Mistiryshak (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the template!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Abaddon and Saelos artwork from GMT

Hi, I was wondering what to do with the artwork for Saelos from GMT, the demon doesn't appear in GMT but its design was used for Abaddon in the game, so I wonder how should I name the artwork file and if I should use it in Abaddon's infobox. Hee-Ho (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The artwork of Abaddon and Saelos was uploaded by Katsumi Aizaki on her Twitter account btw. Hee-Ho (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a bit tricky. I will have to ask staff about this. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will await for a reply!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I suppose a reply hasn't been made yet since you're busy with the files moving, but I still want to remind you of this haha, sorry if it feels like putting pressure, I'm just a bit impatient --Hee-Ho (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the wait. It was determined that the file should be named Saleos, but placed in Abaddon's infobox. Additionally, the Abaddon page should clarify that its artwork was originally created for Saleos, who went unused. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the reply!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Artwork has been uploaded, however I made a typo so it needs moving, hopefully you or another mod gets to it lol. --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirects for Abduel and Cassiel's sprites from GMT

Hi, the Abduel and Cassiel sprites from GMT lack redirects as I forgot to put move templates on them, now they all should have it, but I'll check if I missed one. --Hee-Ho (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Vesta´s sprites still haven't been moved yet too, I believe I put move templates on them a few days ago, but get to them when you can, don't feel pressured to do it. --Hee-Ho (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I got this taken care of. Thanks again! -- Mistiryshak (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this, but I noticed that the GMT PC98 Abduel Side, Back, Attack and Hurt sprites don't have file redirects for Cassiel, be sure to fix it haha, thanks for the other sprites btw!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Should be fixed now; thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Haagenti Artwork

Hi, Katsumi Aizaki just uploaded her artwork for Haagenti, I was wondering if it should be on Moloch's page, as it is also used for him on the game as Haagenti and Moloch share sprites. Hee-Ho (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That one should only be on Haagenti's page, not Moloch's, because the Demon it was designed for is in the game. Reusing sprites doesn't mean they share an artwork. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright thanks a bunch, will upload the artwork right away!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

GMT Skill Module Skill Effects

Hi, I'm still not done making the document with the skills, but in the meantime I noticed something that hasn't been fixed in the module, some of the support skills are not listed as being able to use them outside of combat, skills such as Traport and Dia, I know you haven't played the game so you aren't as knowledgable, but if you need a list of skills that can be used outside of battle I can make one once we have all 309 skills done. Greetings and good night!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

GMT Skill Module Document (it's finally here lol)

Hi, here's a link to the skill module document for you to borrow information for the wiki, it's up to skill 280 (at the moment of writing this), so 10 more skills, and it's quite fun since a few of the skills here are not attached to any acquisition lines, two aren't even used by any demons and cannot be learned through normal methods.

Anyway, here's the link!!

Link: GMT Skill Module Document

You and to anyone you share this document to, have the role of comentators, so feel free to add questions and a bunch of other things to this document. Enjoy and good night :D --Hee-Ho (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

the document has been finished, all skills up to 308 (yeah it's only 308 skills) and a few skills that come before Agi (usually reserved for unused skills) were added since a few demons use them, as noted in the notes for those skills, thanks again to everyone involved with this module and document, really happy with it :D --Hee-Ho (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the document. I'm a bit busy at the moment (which is also why I haven't taken care of the rest of the moves) but I will handle this when I can. Appreciate it! -- Mistiryshak (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem, take the time you need!! Hee-Ho (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I've gotten these added. Now begins the long and tiring work of adding in what everything does, fixing some errors, adding some missing information like all the remaining descriptions, but that can come later. For now, every entry is in the module. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There are a few skills that need testing, as they aren't in any demons base kit but can be learned via levelling up, I could try to ask a friend to ask Dyon what these skills do. But yeah, I'm really happy with all the work you've done!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Forced Encounters in GMT

Hi, I'm writing because of the forced encounters in GMT, I am unsure on whether or not add them to the bosses page of the game, since demons there usually have the same stats as the regular demon, but come with a unique battle theme (which you may have heard in the unused music of DevSum), let me know what you think about the inclusion of forced encounters to that page. --Hee-Ho (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For these kinds of encounters they may be mentioned as part of the Game Appearances section, but they are generally not considered bosses. This is a bit of a grey area that many people have different opinions on so the stance of others may differ, but that's what I would say. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I have the GUIDE-MAP pdf which has documented every demon encounter, so it should be easy. --Hee-Ho (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

GMT Dojin Artbook

Hi, I was wondering where I can upload pictures and write information regarding the dojin artbook of GMT, since Katsumi Aizaki just uploaded the cover and back cover of the 2nd volume of the dojin books, they're really high quality and seeing them getting lost on twitter will be a shame. --Hee-Ho (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

For this one let me ask staff. For now save the images so that they don't get lost. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I saved them, I'll await for more input!! --Hee-Ho (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Any news on this? Also, I have a question regarding the Machine artwork I uploaded of GMT, its used on several demons from the Machine race, but no demon is attributed this artwork, the first demon you see that uses it is Gate Robot at Hatsudai Shelter, so I was wondering if we should put the artworks on the pages of all the demons that have the same sprite and/or different palette. --Hee-Ho (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the artbooks, you can go ahead and make pages about them. We're all pretty certain we want to have the covers so I see no issue with it. As for Machine, if no Demon is attached to the artwork, that's a bit tough. Maybe it should go on the Machine race page? -- Mistiryshak (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

How should the pages be called? Since they don't have an abbreviation here I also don't know what to do with that. --Hee-Ho (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Btw, I made a new account on discord, but I only use it for DMs, thought it'd be easier to contact you like that. --Hee-Ho (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the machine artwork, since no demon is attached to it, I'm unsure on what to do, you said it could go on the page of the machine race, but I'm not entirely sure on if that's the correct move to do. --Hee-Ho (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We can't really make an abbreviation without knowing what the book is called. If you'd like that, you'd have to tell me the book's name. As for the artwork, I suggest just doing what I suggested since I am staff here lol -- Mistiryshak (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

【GIGATEN】『偽典・女神転生　～東京黙示録～』デザイン集 Billy Mitchell (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Lahmu

I was saying Lahmu was truly evil and didn’t feel remorse, not Sahori. The reason why I considered it a plot point is that Lahmu’s plan to take the throne failed because the two of them wwren’r compatible. --Masterscatman (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Links

Hello Mistiryshak! Sorry to bother you but I had something I wanted to discuss. As you probably noticed I have been dealing with Wikipedia links on demon pages (specifically Wiki links for the main personas/demons that said pages are about). Since you added back the Arsène link on his page, I'm just curious in the reason why, and your opinion on these types of links in general. Thanks! Starmine (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, mainly because to my knowledge we have no guidelines against it, so there's no real reason to en masse remove them. They provide helpful links for potentially more information than we are interested in covering since we only cover the actual figures and many figures (i.e. Apollo) have notable aspects that we just don't really need to talk about, like their notability in art or popular culture. Think of them as links for more information for those who are interested. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes that is something that I was thinking about but I would still like to say my case on it. Firstly I think that including the wiki link devalues the work put into to the profile section. Like I see it as a why would people care to read what was written in the profile section when they can rather just click on the wiki link and read about said demon/persona their. And I even think their are some other users that think this way since I have seen some people remove the sectionstub and just put a wiki link plus a sentence like that is good enough. It makes our wiki looks like its relying on Wikipedia as a crutch, and I believe that is a big disservice to all the users hard work with taking time to fill the profile with info, citations, etc.

Second point is that Wikipedia ain't a perfect extra source to link to for some figures. Like you mention Apollo with his Wikipedia page's section on art and pop culture but those are somewhat lacking. The art section only really covers statues lacking in the other art forms, and pop culture is just incomplete only mentioning few examples each of dance and books, no movies, games, etc. Obviously this is still more than what we would put in the wiki, but still why don't we then just reference more comprehensive websites instead? Like I don't have it at the top of my head but I have seen sites with pretty comprehensive listing for imagery of Greek figures in art from early ancient Greece to the Renaissance, we don't need to put it in the profile portion but in the references would do pretty good! We could up more niche sites that get lost in the search engine to help people who are more interested.

And as a last aside, speaking as someone who IS really interested in world history and mythology (definitely bolstered by playing the megaten series), I just always have wikipedia on the side to quickly access. Wikipedia is pretty well known, so if someone wants more info on a certain figure they can just find it on their own. So ya, sorry if this was extremely wordy, just wanted to make sure my point comes across well. So hope you consider this, thanks! Starmine (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually wait hold up, I just came up with a solution that I think would be a great compromise! How about we just move the links to Wikipedia concerning the page's Demon to their references section. This way the hard work that we or our fellow users put into the profile section will be able to stand on its own and if people want more info they can just scroll down and click on the Wikipedia or any of the other sources links. We already have the Reference section sometimes split into ;General and ;Specific, so we can just put it into the either the General or make a new category like ;Other Links or something I don't know we can workshop the name. We can also use this new category to put the links to other the other more niches sites that I was suggesting in my second point. Of course we should only do this for demons/personas with Wikipedia pages that, like you mentioned, have varied content we would not include and shouldn't for those with underdeveloped or no individual page (like a lot of the Persona Duos, who currently the main ones with Wikipedia links). So what do you think about this? If anything, I'd be more than happy to be the one to do these tweaks to each of the demon pages! Starmine (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I think you're being a bit overly attached to this issue. There's no reason to remove the links that are being put there; we have no rule against it and they are helpful. We also should not ever use Wikipedia as a formal reference, per Wikipedia's own consensus. There's no need to reach a "compromise" here because the issue was decided upon, consensus reached, and action taken solely by you rather than asking another user if they find it helpful or not. Removing helpful content in this manner without discussion can be destructive, even if you think it improves the page. We aren't linking Wikipedia because we think Wikipedia is some definitive, all-powerful source, but because it is still a very genuinely helpful "there's more information here", in much the same way a book may provide a "further reading" section without explaining what is actually going to be taught there and how up to date it currently is. There is a Wikipedia essay on this topic: Chesterton's fence. In other words, don't delete things solely because you feel they serve no good purpose. I advise you to reflect on this essay for a bit. If after reflection you still feel they are troublesome to include, I ask that you ask fellow community members for their opinions to build a proper consensus on how people feel about including them, and policy will be enacted based upon those results.

Another thing to consider is that you may have missed the point a little when I said we link because it mentions things we don't. The whole point is that we don't want to talk about Apollo's art history because it is wholly irrelevant to us. Wikipedia having a bare-bones art section is still better than us having none at all. So, we wouldn't have any need to include in our reference list a source that we don't actually reference in the text; references are not "further reading" but academic sources we used to build the section. It's basically a way of saying "this is where I got this information from, I didn't personally go to France and interview an expert, but this person did, and so I am using their word in my own writing". Including references that we didn't actually use to build our content is a form of academic dishonesty and makes us look less credible; this is because it makes it appear as if we just took a grab bag of sources that mention the subject, cited them, and then wrote something without reading any of it. If we feel like Wikipedia is also outright lying, then we definitely shouldn't link it either - and in that case, I'd definitely argue for removing a link, but doing so uncritically without doing that research is making the assumption that we know better automatically, which is perhaps a bit presumptuous given that field experts often edit Wikipedia.

And as an aside, I assure you, we are not devaluing our own work by including a Wikipedia link. We work quite hard on these sections (including myself, as I have bought books specifically for the purpose of filling out profile sections) and I do not feel it lessens the value of those (or at the very least, my own) contributions. Were this the case, it would be pointless to cite anything, wouldn't it? -- Mistiryshak (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to start off by saying that I am very deeply sorry about this whole thing . I just always jump to make changes without thinking or discussing with others and end up just doing things on my own that make me come off as looking like a selfish know it all, so again I'm really sorry. If you'll humor me a little more about this topic their points I'm a little confused and some of your points in your response, and also I think you misinterpreted some of my points so I'd like to share (I doubt I'm convincing you at this point but I do want to share so we at least understand each other).

The "it would be pointless to cite anything, wouldn't it?" in response to me saying Wikipedia links devalue the page, is a little confusing, I don't see the correlation between citing academic research and putting Wikipedia links in. And I never deleted any other Wikipedia links in profiles pertaining to other aspects of a demon page (such as Leblanc's on Arsene's page). When I say it devalues your guys work I mean that in, why would other people take the time to read what is written in the origin section when there is a link to that same figure on Wikipedia with more info. Basically people might not care for we have written since us and Wikipedia are both, "grabs of people collaborating to cite information abut a figure", except ones bigger and more full so why would they care about us. You can argue that people do that regardless of the links being their or not, which is true but their the ease at which people can just go and invalidate the work with one click at the beginning of the section. And as an aside, I think you missed my point on other users removing sectionstub|type=origin/profile, throwing a Wikipedia and maybe a sentence and then becoming inactive after that. I'm saying these users are devaluing the work you guys put into writing these profiles, less you devaluing your own work by putting them in yourselves.

Next your point on comparing us putting Wiki links in our Profile to a Further reading section is little dishonest. A book does not put its Further readings in the front nor when most relevant, including e-books. What I have seen they put it in the back, which is the point I was trying to make/suggest. The reason I said to put it in the Reference section was because that is currently our lowest section on the page, so after a person reads all we have relevant on the page about a figure, they can then click on the link to Wikipedia for more. Also had no idea about bloating references = academic dishonesty so I appreciate that info! Anyways we can instead make a new section like External Links or Further Readings. I am not saying to remove the fence, I understand its value, I'm saying to move the fence to a more advantageous position.

Speaking on the fences, you mentioned "ask fellow community members for their opinions to build a proper consensus on how people feel", but how would I do that? I know you probably would not want me barging into other people's talk pages about something irrelevant to them, so I'm just wondering how?

Thanks again for the responses. I realize this probably a waste of time for you, but I do really appreciate these talks so thank you! Starmine (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

So, first of all, please do not be so self-deprecating. I do not think anything personally negative about you. This stuck out to me a bit so I felt the need to mention it; this isn't really a waste of time for me at all and discussing policy matters is one of my roles here. :)

I do want to tackle your points one by one, so I'll start with clarification about the citing comment. What I am saying is that creating routes to other resources with information, whether as a reference or as a link, adds value, therefore it doesn't devalue anything. As an educational resource, the utmost priority should be educating users. Anything that does not does not harm the wiki's ability to pursue its mission in a tangible manner - unless it is done through unacceptable methods such as plagiarism or flagrant violation of policy and standards - is welcome.

Your point about people ignoring our writing for Wikipedia's is interesting, but unsupported by the evidence. Data reliably shows that people tend to prefer to read the information already in front of them; for example, in 2025 Pew Research Center found that Google's inclusion of AI summaries led to less people actually clicking links on the page because the page they were on already had what they wanted. A 2024 article for Nature Human Behavior by Sundar et al. also found that the majority of people who share news stories on social media don't actually read the linked article and just read the headline or social media post, and make conclusions and opinions based on this. Ergo, the evidence shows that having links doesn't necessarily lead to people clicking on them (in fact, up to 75% of people don't). Another thing is you're taking a very "aw man their cake is so much cooler" approach to this rather than considering the possibility of a user going "wow two cakes" and reading both sources of information - which is more likely among readers who will click the link in the first place. Cognitively, it also takes more effort and energy to open up a new website and read a long article trying to find what you're looking for rather than read what is in front of you. So the science doesn't really support your hypothesis about user behavior - it says the opposite, in fact.

Regarding other users removing sectionstub notices, that wasn't addressed directly because it wasn't a valid argument. Recall that part of our Code of Conduct is not to assume bad faith. The inverse of this is therefore to assume good faith. Did they really remove those notices to devalue the page? Or did they remove it because they genuinely believed they had improved the section out of stub status? There's also nothing wrong with going in, doing one thing to contribute, and then becoming inactive. The key is that they still did something to contribute. There's also a bit of an issue with your assumption that these editors are generally inactive editors with low contributions, because I know the kinds of edits you are speaking about and several of them are from well-respected editors (including staff members), several of which likely do feel their contributions are sufficient and have academic backgrounds and sources and therefore already know how much there is to say on a subject. If you disagree, the answer is not to undo a portion of their work but to reapply the stub notice with the |reason= tag filled explaining your position - or add the thing you consider to be missing yourself. Sections can be both sufficient and short, but they could still be improved.

The point about further reading sections in books was not meant to be taken so literally. The phrasing was "in much the same way", not "in the exact same way" - a comparison, not an equation. I was attempting to convey that they serve the same purpose to a reader. Consider another way of viewing this comparison - when an article on Megami Tensei Wiki leads to another article on this wiki, what is the functional difference between this and a link to a Wikipedia article? Is it not also a form of leading the reader to more information on a subject? Should such links also be placed at the bottom, and if not, why should Wikipedia links specifically be an exception, outside of being links to Wikipedia? (This question is not merely rhetorical - this is a question that would need a good answer before your suggestion would be approved). And should Megami Tensei Wiki be formatted like a book, or like a website? In what ways may formatting the wiki like a book cause structural issues? (This one is rhetorical, and there are several answers, but the answer may be found by considering what kinds of books a wiki does resemble.)

Regarding the consensus gathering question, there is an excellent essay on how to canvass for a discussion. My recommendation is to use the community portal and present your arguments, then send neutral talk page messages to users who have been involved with profile sections, whether they added Wikipedia links or not, asking if they would be interested in joining. It will still be up to their own discretion whether or not to respond, but the invitation often helps generate discussion. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Very interesting points and good to know about how to get community consensus for the future! I will say as an aside I DID see these inactive editors with low contributions making these kinds of edits, that is something I would not make up, but I definitely over blown how many of those edits were caused by them so my bad. You defiantly are right that I was looking at this whole thing with more bad fate and single mindedness then I should have. I've seen that two cakes meme so many times that I never thought to apply it here lol. Anyways you've convinced me not to continue pursuing this change, at least for now, I might in the future if I find a suitable answer to that none rhetorical question you posed.

Since you have a lot more knowledge about wikis and Wikipedia itself, I would like your advice on how would you judge the quality standard of Wiki articles to include along with our own. Like their are some obvious that probably shouldn't be included, like with Thelxiepeia who has a Wikipedia link on her page but that just goes to a disambiguation page, but what about other figures with actual pages on Wikipedia for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starmine (talk) {{{2}}}

(Resetting the indent purely for readability reasons) Many Wikipedia articles are judged via their content assessment system. This is essentially a way for Wikipedia users to identify the issues on a page as well as the article's completeness. One advantage of the content assessment system is none of it is automated, and it is usually done by very experienced editors, so they are typically quite useful. This isn't a wiki policy or anything, but I recommend that a linked article be at least C-Class - it has somewhat substantial content and it has reliable sources, but it has room for improvement. Ideally, the article should be B-Class or higher, but C-Class is still fine, especially for subjects that are rather obscure. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Had no idea this was even a thing, that's super interesting! Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this with me. I really appreciate all this new information and perspective you shared, and will be sure to keep this in mind for future edits! :D Starmine (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: your contribution to the Language module

Can I ask if you would give a verbal agreement to dual-license your contribution to Module:Language under both this wiki's license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) and under GFDL 1.3? I would like to reuse this module on FEWiki and that is a blocker. Billy Mitchell (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, gladly. As an additional stipulation, I agree that any future alterations I make to this Module and/or its documentation will also fall under these licenses. -- Mistiryshak (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)