Revision as of 19:04, 4 January 2013 editAngusWOOF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,369 edits →The Sasami Effect: what effect?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:01, 4 January 2013 edit undoLucia Black (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers17,382 edits →Issues with Ghost in the Shell (EMERGENCY): new section. please helpNext edit → | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
:I agree that the bolding should go, but I think more prose should probably be added to articles describing major roles. Obviously that would be even more work than just removing the bolding, but I think it would improve the articles. ] (]) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | :I agree that the bolding should go, but I think more prose should probably be added to articles describing major roles. Obviously that would be even more work than just removing the bolding, but I think it would improve the articles. ] (]) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks for the heads up. I agree this needs to be coupled with adding more prose, and should get a lot of the voice actor articles out of stub-class. Got lots of voice actors to clean up. ] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ::Thanks for the heads up. I agree this needs to be coupled with adding more prose, and should get a lot of the voice actor articles out of stub-class. Got lots of voice actors to clean up. ] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
==Issues with Ghost in the Shell (EMERGENCY)== | |||
Sorry for the dramatization, but a dispute between an editor and I regarding the focus of the article. The editor ] believes the article should cover all media, including media already covered in its respected articles. (For example: ] having extensive coverage in the main article despite the fact that its more suited in ]. I personally find it too redundant and unnecessary. It would be great if we got more comments regardless of the outcome.] (]) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:01, 4 January 2013
ShortcutsJapan Project‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Sasami Effect
What reference work discussed the "The Sasami Effect"? Was it on VIZ's website? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Im not sure quite what you are asking, do you mean Sasami Masaki Jurai from Tenchi Muyo! ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- It does refer to Sasami. The text on Misplaced Pages says it comes from a VIZ employee WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, all the info on the Tenchi Muyo! character pages was merged together from seperate articles on the characters. I checked the edit history of Sasami Masaki Jurai and saw no external links or references to be found. Looks to me like it is WP:OR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless the person writing the Misplaced Pages article was interviewing Carl Horn personally, it can't be WP:OR (original research and being unreferenced are completely different things). I assume that term must have come either from some interview with Carl Horn or some commentary he wrote, but I can't find the source. The first edit I can see to Sasami Masaki Jurai (now a redirect) contains the "Sasami Effect" term, so whatever it came from must predate that edit (March 2006). It may be hard to track down the original source at this point. Calathan (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- That phrase has not caught on in the anime community. I've watched the series that involve Sasami, but still don't know what that means. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unless the person writing the Misplaced Pages article was interviewing Carl Horn personally, it can't be WP:OR (original research and being unreferenced are completely different things). I assume that term must have come either from some interview with Carl Horn or some commentary he wrote, but I can't find the source. The first edit I can see to Sasami Masaki Jurai (now a redirect) contains the "Sasami Effect" term, so whatever it came from must predate that edit (March 2006). It may be hard to track down the original source at this point. Calathan (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, all the info on the Tenchi Muyo! character pages was merged together from seperate articles on the characters. I checked the edit history of Sasami Masaki Jurai and saw no external links or references to be found. Looks to me like it is WP:OR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- It does refer to Sasami. The text on Misplaced Pages says it comes from a VIZ employee WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
My Darling Is a Foreigner title
Hi! I posted a comment for discussion on Talk:My Darling Is a Foreigner not long ago. The title has a couple of somewhat odd issues (the "official English title" used on the Japanese and Hong Kong posters doesn't use any capitalization) and I'm not sure how to deal with it by myself, so I haven't directly made a move request. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
FLCL episode list merge.
There is currently a discussion at FLCL on whether the ffeatured list should be merged. I personally dont think it should be merged but consensus is leaning toward merge. It would be great to have more comments.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I replied, no need to nix quality for quantity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
SAO reception
Resolved – There appears to be agreement to keep the Kotaku reception. Re-added.So Down3 (talk · contribs) keeps removing the Kotaku reception from Sword Art Online. He says that, "this is basically the point of view of one specific person, which is not what you want to see on a neutral encyclopedia. That might have been ok if said person was some kind of reference authority in animation production, but as it is it's just a website american chronicler, whose usual topic of talk isn't even animation, therefore you can't even say it represents the american community reception." Nevertheless, is the Kotaku reception valid, or is he right? Narutolovehinata5 04:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- They are a reliable source used for anime and video games. Also i dont see how he's right. One review wont change the nuetrality of the article unless the user adding the reviews are avoiding a certain group of them. And even then thats not the reviewers fault, its the editor for deliberately avoiding to add in more sources. So no he isnt right. Im not even sure what he meant specifically.Lucia Black (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- So it is fine to restore the reception? Narutolovehinata5 05:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I believe so.Lucia Black (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, too, as long as Leofighter's criticism of the source as not usually conversant with anime isn't actually valid. All third-party reviews are "the point of view of one specific person" (except in the case of "duo" reviewers like Siskel and Ebert, of course), by definition, and it's routine to include them in sections on reviews and critical reception for works like this, as long as they are regarded as notable. WP:RS is not actually an issue when it comes to reviews (there is no fact to challenge, other than "Did this reviewer actually write this?", I suppose), but whether the offline or online publication is notable enough to be influential and well-read is important in the context. No one could give a hoot what a reviewer in the Clovis News Journal of the town of Clovis, New Mexico, had to say about a film (other than perhaps one produced or filmed on-location there), but what a reviewer in the Boston Globe said is considerably more significant. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be an agreement here I readded the section. We will have to see if the user in question decides to remove it again.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- So I guess this is resolved now. Narutolovehinata5 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It should be unless the other user decides to remove it again though in that case stronger actions may need to be taken.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- So I guess this is resolved now. Narutolovehinata5 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be an agreement here I readded the section. We will have to see if the user in question decides to remove it again.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, too, as long as Leofighter's criticism of the source as not usually conversant with anime isn't actually valid. All third-party reviews are "the point of view of one specific person" (except in the case of "duo" reviewers like Siskel and Ebert, of course), by definition, and it's routine to include them in sections on reviews and critical reception for works like this, as long as they are regarded as notable. WP:RS is not actually an issue when it comes to reviews (there is no fact to challenge, other than "Did this reviewer actually write this?", I suppose), but whether the offline or online publication is notable enough to be influential and well-read is important in the context. No one could give a hoot what a reviewer in the Clovis News Journal of the town of Clovis, New Mexico, had to say about a film (other than perhaps one produced or filmed on-location there), but what a reviewer in the Boston Globe said is considerably more significant. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Bolding of major roles
FYI – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.There is a RfC open at WT:Manual of Style#Bolding of major roles that addresses the boldfacing of the "major" roles played by anime actors in articles on those actors. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a consensus has been reached, I wonder if there is a bot that can remove all the bold "Important roles" for the articles on people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the RfC hasn't been closed yet, but yes, it's getting pretty cold there. Actually, I think AutoWikiBrowser should be good enough, but I'm not sure. Narutolovehinata5 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and de-bolded roles from some articles. Work is still incomplete, so any help is appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 12:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Shinma from Vampire Princess Miyu
|
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Shinma is on the merge list and I was wondering if anyone here was fimilar with the anime, are the Shima major characters? If so which should be included in a possible split off character list (List of Vampire Princess Miyu characters)? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of the TV series, they generally take the role of "monster of the week". Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- So are they good merge targets for the characters page, or should the article be put up for AfD as very minor non notable characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- It has been a very long time since I watched the anime (10+ years), but I think the Shinma on the Shinma page are generally not very significant and shouldn't be merged into the main article. The Shinma that are major characters seem to already be listed in the main article, and not in the Shinma list. Maybe just Lemures' entry should be merged, since I see he has an entry on the main list. Calathan (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- While each monster has a distinct name and ability, it only lasts for an episode or two. Their data can also be added to the television episode summaries. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It has been a very long time since I watched the anime (10+ years), but I think the Shinma on the Shinma page are generally not very significant and shouldn't be merged into the main article. The Shinma that are major characters seem to already be listed in the main article, and not in the Shinma list. Maybe just Lemures' entry should be merged, since I see he has an entry on the main list. Calathan (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- So are they good merge targets for the characters page, or should the article be put up for AfD as very minor non notable characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
De-bolding of roles
Although the RfC I started over at WT:MOS hasn't been closed yet, the consensus already appears to be quite clear. As such, I have boldly de-bolded leading roles from a number of articles (such as Hiroshi Kamiya, Jun Fukuyama, Megumi Hayashibara and Harumi Sakurai). Nevertheless, this is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process, so any extra help, whether by editors or bots, is appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the bolding should go, but I think more prose should probably be added to articles describing major roles. Obviously that would be even more work than just removing the bolding, but I think it would improve the articles. Calathan (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I agree this needs to be coupled with adding more prose, and should get a lot of the voice actor articles out of stub-class. Got lots of voice actors to clean up. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Issues with Ghost in the Shell (EMERGENCY)
Sorry for the dramatization, but a dispute between an editor and I regarding the focus of the article. The editor User:ChrisGualtieri believes the article should cover all media, including media already covered in its respected articles. (For example: Ghost in the Shell:Stand Alone Complex (video game) having extensive coverage in the main article despite the fact that its more suited in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I personally find it too redundant and unnecessary. It would be great if we got more comments regardless of the outcome.Lucia Black (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: