Talk:I-No

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Side Black's "alternate future"[edit]

Should I explain this in the story section? I guess it'd be significant enough to warrant a sh section here ... as well, er, as in Dizzy's article.

I think that, if you want to talk about GGXX Side Black, then you should make a new article for it. RTL 16 May 2005 (GMT)

As well ... I'm curious as to whether the I-No in GGXX is the I-No who time-travelled, or the I-No from the "natural" timeline ... and either way, what happened to the other one.

Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm pretty sure there's only one I-no. I don't see any implications for why there would be more than 2. RTL 16 May 2005 (GMT)
Well, look at it this way:
  • I-No pretends to be helpless in the battle of Rome.
  • Ky dies.
  • Ten years later, Dizzy's taken up arms after Justice is dead.
  • I-No meets That Man and tells him she can change things.
  • I-No travels back in time and prevents Ky from dying.
I don't know if she did so by, like, going back in "spirit" and "posessing" her past self, but I'm not sure that's what it meant by time travvel, but yeah. Yar Kramer 16:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, time travel is decidedly undefined in this game, so for now I think it's safe/best to assume there's only one I-no. (Occam's razor and all that.) RTL 22 May 2005 (GMT)
Considering I-No "officially joins" that man following their meeting in the alternate timeline it obviously makes more sense for that I-No to be the one in GGXX. I've never watched Side Black and probably will never get a chance to (all the information I've gathered is from GameFAQs) so I don't know of any personality differences between I-No in Side Black and I-No in GGXX that could showcase them as two different incarnations. A "turned good" I-No separate from the GGXX one saving Ky does make more sense (and would make an interesting extra character ala Holy Order Sol), but AFAIK that's not the case. Kuuenbu 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in the comics or the cd, but she pretends to be helpless and sneaks in to meet "that man" who is being held captive by the gears.

She actually needs Faust's body in order to do so because he has a map (probably on his body). He dies in the process (still as Doctor Baldhead) and she finds "that man". She agrees and goes back to prevent Ky from being killed and Faust is still alive, allowing the current universe to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.223 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalomania[edit]

The article refers to "Megalomania" as an overdrive, but I don't think that's strictly accurate; apart from anything else, it doesn't take up any Tension unless she FRC's it. (I have no idea where, but I recall it being compared to a Burst somewhere ...) --Yar Kramer 02:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X-Japan[edit]

While one repeated passage of I-No's theme, Midnight Carnival, clearly references the X-Japan song Kurenai, it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "version" of Kurenai as it is otherwise an original piece. It's also incorrect to call it a "guitar only" version, as the performance is for a full band, with bass, drums, keyboards and multiple guitar parts. I suggest re-writing this line to read something more like "Her boss theme Midnight Carnival contains clear musical references to the song "Kurenai" by the J-rock band, X-Japan."

Works for me. --Yar Kramer 16:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possible masochist?[edit]

Throughout the game, either in taunts, win quotes, story mode, and the fact that she is described as "deriving pleasure from tormenting Dizzy" I-no seems to constantly gain pleasure through fighting or pain. Boss I-no's winning quotes highly remark this. There is also the possibility of her not being a masochist, but a saddistic. As shown when she shows on a helpless village being attacked by gears —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.110.191 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, DW. Since I usually only play Dizzy (and sometimes Bridget or Millia), I don't get quite as good a feel for details like antiair and stuff. Me, I'm a story kinda guy. Yar Kramer 21:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I-no uses a 6-string electric guitar. It's not a bass. RTL 16 May 2005
Ah, see, that's the kinda stuff "edit this page" is for. ;) Yar Kramer 16:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I thought it was "your" article. Then again, this *is* Wikipedia, so that was unnecessary. Thanks for the correction, though. RTL 22 May 2005 (GMT)

How does I-No have a vendetta against Dizzy? I thought she just got her jollies abusing Dizzy. RTL 02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. I just didn't know how else to put "She also seems to get her jollies abusing Dizzy" in an acceptible-to-Wikipedia fashion. --Yar Kramer 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No References[edit]

I'm removing any music references that have no sources, in this, and other articles. People are beginning to put down references that don't even bear a passing resemblence.--71.178.234.136 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I-No. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I-No. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I-No. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting "No"[edit]

And please stop already. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Personal melodrama that I'm not even sure how to react anymore. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Guilty Gear Judgment stuill has no article. I don't even know how many years later. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, this what I was talking about at WT:VG. This random complaining that articles don’t exist or improvements haven’t been made. Why are you saying this? Who are you talking to? If you’re unhappy an article doesn’t exist, WP:SOFIXIT. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, because it's supposed to be a cooperative work? I know it's hard to believe but even I (!) can't do everything all alone. Like here I'm showing you what needs to be done for an improvement since you appear to be interested in Guilty Gear. I'm sarcastic, I know you're not really. There's so much work awaiting all around meanwhile you people get so easily distracted by just the newest deletion rash or other things likewise counter-productive. I-No is fine. Probably needs to be updated, copyedited, maybe even rewritten, sure. But it's not a burning thing. Meanwhile there's been no GG Judgement article for [checking] wow, it's 13 years now. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, how often do angry sounding, rambling responses like this work for you? Are you just completely unaware of how rude you sound? Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Serge, I hate to disagree with you but... in all fairness, I feel Snake is absolutely justifiably angry here. How should I phrase this... He's one of the most prolific content creators at WP:VG right now and has pretty much single-handedly created some of the best looking fictional character articles I've seen, and it does feel a bit shit when you're putting in hours and hours of hard work to actually create stuff, and, as someone who's been trying to get back into the rhythm of creating articles again, all I can say that finding all that content and sourcing ain't easy. It is easy, though, to just vote merge in the perennial fictional character deletion discussions that come up time and time again on the project, often for pages that have 20+ sources or need cleanup, not deletion. And, frankly, it's rather saddening that certain editors would rather do this, over and over (because this isn't some new thing that's happening) rather than truly pick up the tools and expand fictional character articles in dire need of expanding, and feel morally justified and pleased with themselves over it over what is essentially gloating over the destruction of encyclopedic content. It's very easy to get rubbed the wrong way here, especially when you're the one creating the content, and I'm someone who usually doesn't get very worked up over volunteer work on Wikipedia. Especially when its a topic you're passionate about but community consensus is constantly to delete instead of pitching in and helping out, and merger discussions all feel rather circlejerky and no serious attempt to find sourcing is made. Anyways, I know I'm "rambling" here, so I'll stop now - it's just something that I've been really wanting to get out of my system for a while now. Though it's not like I could've said much about merging I-No anyway since, surprise surprise, it was just a drive-by tagging without even a rationale on the talkpage. And, for the record, that's a strong oppose to the merge from me. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who writes and edits professionally, taking things personally is an understandable, but ultimately unjustifiable. If your work has flaws, a person is not doing a disservice by pointing them out. If Snake's only reception to his work is positive, you'll never improve or become aware of your blind spots. I used to be defensive about my work, and I used to be a worse writer than I am (not that I'm anything special now), so I understand their reactions to this. However, no one in this discussion wants to merge I-No because they think I-No doesn't "deserve" an article, and no one in this discussion, I imagine, is opposed to allowing an effort to fixing the issues described. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not talking about him being defensive about his own work, I’m talking about how he randomly and rudely complains that articles haven’t been created or updated. And yet you defend him, and NARH even started indulging his behavior below, so I guess I’m wasting my time. Ping me if anyone wants my stance in any given discussion. Otherwise I’m done with this clown show. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I can understand why you would take issue, but I don't exactly recognize my behavior as rewarding him or indulging in his behavior, merely providing a skeleton of an article for him to work on. I spent very little time actually working on it, merely creating it to demonstrate how little effort it takes for Snake to fix the problems he finds, and that he can participate in this specific discussion or go work on that article instead. I reckon I wouldn't do it again, anyway. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god fine. Guilty Gear Judgment. Now, please, let's have a conversation about this article, not Guilty Gear Judgment (and I hope you pick up where I left off since it seems pretty significant to you that it doesn't exist). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Why would you encourage/reward this sort of behavior...? You’ve just re-enforced his belief that he can complain and berate people into action... Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess to make a point. *shrugs* To demonstrate what he could in literally 30 minutes if he stopped complaining and started acting. Of course he may take that to mean that he can do that, but I do not expect that Snake will get the same result. At most, it's going to reflect poorly on him if he expects users to do his work for him. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey let's talk about I-No instead of each other eh? This article is actually a really good example of my issue with female character articles (and all articles with this issue, but I tend to see it most often with female characters). Like this:

  • They also elected I-No as the twenty-sixth "hottest video game character", and ranked her at thirty-sixth place on the list of "The 50 Most Dominant Fighting Game Characters", where they commented "She fought with an electric guitar. Her cleavage was godlike. She cut you with a guitar extension cord. She got half naked when she won. 'Nuff said."

Could become this:

  • They also ranked I-No 25th in their "hottest video game character" list and 36th in their "The 50 Most Dominant Fighting Game Characters" list. They cited her guitar and cleavage in their summaries.

None of that quotation is needed, and the tone just doesn't fit in the article. This is, mind you, not a great example of a replacement because I don't know what the determining factors were in each list, so I just used it as an example of something you could potentially change it to. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh my god fine. Guilty Gear Judgment." - my god, external links goes last in the article AND you need some external links for it to to be there, also use the tags where they're needed please.([1]) In case if you searched for the official website but failed, I just found it too. As I said, I'm not against rewriting the article in various ways (probably needs to be updated too - most of such articles are out of date, more or less). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also no, this article here isn't my work. (Maybe I did edit it once but I don't remember.) It's just - fine, nothing fundamentally wrong with it. I've seen articles that are "fundamentally wrong" alright. Last year I meerged a bunch of them into Knights of the Round Table and they really were like that - sometimes literally 3 sentences, 0 refs since early 2000s. (I've since de-merge restored a couple like Dinadan after made them more fit. They're not good by any means but they're - fine, too. One much better is Brunor, also merged and de-merged, especially since I made it into a collective article about several various "Brunor" characters now and not just the one of the coat. For a comparison the original version that I merged before working on it to get back was [2] - as "Bruenor" but it's just one of spellings. Also for example Dagonet too was unreferenced but I let it stay becuase I thought the subject's cultural significance also beyond Middle Ages has been demonstrated enough with "Later appearances". Of course it badly needs work, to be honest I just completely forgot all about it until right now.) Anyway it's the work of User:Gabriel Yuji mostly. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the article at hand, Snake. Nothing of what you said is relevant to I-No. I'll give you a hand on that.

In a 2013 poll conducted by Arc System Works, I-No was voted as the 20th most popular character from the series. IGN named I-No their favorite new design from Guilty Gear X2.[13] GameDaily ranked I-No 13th on their "Top 25 Most Bizarre Fighting Characters", repeating the sentiment in a later series called "Babe of Week", featuring her in both "Asian Beauties" and "Guilty Gear Babes". Complex placed the boss battle with I-No in Guilty Gear X2 #Reload as the 14th coolest boss battle of all time, citing her difficulty, her use of a guitar as a weapon, and her stage the hell above the clouds. They also ranked I-No 25th in their "hottest video game character" list and 36th in their "The 50 Most Dominant Fighting Game Characters" list. They cited her guitar and cleavage in their summaries.

Destructoid included I-No on its "Badass of the Month" feature. The publication praised her sex appeal and the difficulty of the fight against her. while also comparing her positively to characters like Morrigan Aensland and Chun-Li positively. Joystiq ranked her first on their "top ten girls of PSP" while noting both the fan appeal and sex appeal of her guitar. UGO Networks ranked her finish move as the third "Most Gruesome Finishing Move" in video game's history, also including I-No in their "Hot Girls We Wish Were Real" list at #14. Her top removal victory pose received positive impressions from both Joystiq and GameDaily. 1UP.com cited her as an example of Guilty Gear's goofy characters.

Do you take any issue with those edits? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have no issue at all with these types of edits - they're great! Don't think anyone else would either. What I did have an issue with was this article getting redirected, but that's a separate matter. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not want to see any articles redirected (within reason, of course - sometimes an article is just ~nothing~). Ideally, if I had time, I would make a strong effort to try to "save" as many of the articles as I could. My goal is to basically try to bring articles like I-No up to a certain standard or, failing that, probably agree that its redirection is for the best. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does look at lot better, probably tweak at a few spots for wording. That last sentence in particular feels awkward. The real problem now though is it reduces it all to just basically list ticks and less actual reception about the character; as awkward as that one quote is if any of the others have some meat to cite beyond the list title it'd help it feel less barebones.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Regarding the merge discussion, while there are some bits of actual reception here, the main issue is that most of them are blurbs with no actual statements on the character herself. The article overall when tightened up would actually even have less body to it, and there's currently no development information at all. I'm not saying she shouldn't have an article, but when tidied up you'd have about two paragraphs in full and not really enough for a full page as of yet with what's here. Condensing it down and leaving it as a list entry for the time being seems like the better idea for the time being.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that merging is the best decision to make with this article. It feels very sparse in terms of establishments of notability (either reception or creation), and my search turned up nothing. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

> there's currently no development information at all

Here you go. Super easy and fast. Next. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, those are some good sources, so I hope that you implement them and attempt to address the issues. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Id like to see which sources are considered to be significant coverage before I give a !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also:

Have fun. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please implement the sources? The implication seems to be that you want others to add these sources, which is strange. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so all that's needed for notability is evidence that coverage exists; it doesn't have to be in the article (WP:CONTN). Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This much is absolutely true, but it is frustrating to see the user seem disinterested in improving the article despite having the sources to implement while wanting the article to remain. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for missing info, hopefully the rest can be filled in. I'm going through the female character article category currently to try and see what could be brought to GA (a Good Topic being the end goal). Unfortunately a lot of these are all over the place, but I think with the sources added this might be enough for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Guilty Gear XX -The Midnight Carnival- BURST ENCYCLOPEDIA.
  2. ^ Guilty Gear 10th Memorial Book. p. 111.

Update image with -Strive- Model?[edit]

Should we update the image for this character with their character art from Guilty Gear Strive? 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:29FE:E37A:9074:1ACE (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I-No is an alternate Megumi[edit]

I want to point out that, while it is confirmed she is Megumi, she is not from the same timeline as Axl was from. It’s confirmed that I-No’s lover from her timeline was called William. But he disappeared and she tried looking for him but failed cuz be was erased. And her humanity slowly dissipated as well as her memories. And Axl is confirmed to be the younger alternate timeline version of him. And Megumi is a younger alternate timeline version of I-No. SG1994! (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes[edit]

  • Specific text to be added or removed: Change the infobox image to the character's render in Guilty Gear Strive
  • Reason for the change: It's the latest game the character has appeared in.
Please upload the file, with a compatible license or fair use rationale, and link it here for us to add. Melmann 21:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article :)

Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 12:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ConcurrentState (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:I-No/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ConcurrentState (talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'm planning on reviewing this article.

I did a lot of preliminary work before formally starting the review, so I don't expect it to take more than a day or two to finalize.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well written in a way that makes it easy to read. No spelling or grammar issues detected.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Article follows MoS. Of note are good use of layout, making the article easy on the eyes, and good use of sections.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Proper use of WP:IC. Spot-check of the sample of sources covering roughly 1/3 of the sources shows that the text in the article is backed by reliable sources.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research detected, everything seems backed by reliable sources.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations or plagiarism detected. Did manual spot-checks and used both CopyPatrol and Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Proper use of WP:IC and attributions where statements from elsewhere are used.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article's scope is appropriate, not too narrow and not too wide.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article does a great job at balancing detail according to WP:DETAIL. Lead is sufficiently and appropriately summarized and to the point, while the rest of the article goes into enough detail without overindulging or needing to be split off into subarticles.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article appears to be stable. There seems to have been a minor misunderstanding between editors after commencing the review, but that seems to have been resolved and hasn't affected the overall stability of the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All media is properly tagged with non-free status and valid non-free rationales. All media also adheres to WP:NFCC#3 by virtue of them being low resolution.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Media is relevant (and arguably essential) to topic and has suitable captions as per WP:CAP.
7. Overall assessment. I'm passing this article with flying colors based on the GAN criteria. I'd like to extend my congratulations to the nominator. It's clear they've put in a lot of work, and I'm glad to see that it paid off. Great job!

Passed! Great job! ConcurrentState (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I-No&oldid=1218441179"