Talk:List of Genshiken chapters

Unoffical chapter titles
I noticed that unofficial translations were/are being used for the chapter titles. I'm fixing those that I can, but I only own volumes 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8.--SeizureDog 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that's my problem. I relocated to Japan about two months ago, and couldn't exactly take all the books I own with me. So right now, I'm working with the Japanese version, which I'm buying piecemeal as I find volumes in various bookshops. (The area I live and work in doesn't have any large retailers that reliably stock all nine volumes of the series at any given time). So I'm translating from the Japanese version since I don't have the Del Rey editions. This being Wikipedia, I'm sure the gaps will be filled in as time goes by. As the page gets more complete, I'd also like to (get someone to) redesign the table to accommodate the length of Genshiken's chapter titles a little better as well. At this point, though, I guess that's something that will have to wait... --Julian Grybowski 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh cool, hi Julian! Love your work over at DaizenshuuEX. Anyway, on to the real reason why I'm speaking here. I have all 9 volumes of Genshiken in my room as we speak. Now are we going by Del Rey's translated titles or are we going for a direct translation from people like you Julian who are obviously well versed in the Japanese language? If we are going with Del Rey's translations, I can edit the list tonight and input the correct titles for you guys. I'll be back here around ten or eleven pm Eastern Standard Time UTC -5 hours so I may not see your responses for more than a few hours from now. But yeah, I'll do it only if we are going to use Del Rey's Translations. スミス ナサニアル (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't hurt to do that. But after you do, it looks like we should convert the tables to something more in-line with the "best practice" table, which uses smaller text and fewer cells. Even though it also means we'll have to write summaries for each volume... --Julian Grybowski (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Now I don't know how to do the reworking of a table. You'll have to find someone who knows a little more about wiki mark-up and how it effects what we see on the screen. However, I have the volumes in front of me as we speak and I will now go change the english titles according to Del Rey.スミス ナサニアル (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I can take care of that part (with apologies to those working hard on the List of Yotsuba&! chapters. In fact, here's the work-in-progress. --Julian Grybowski (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. I would definatly be content with that. I love the way you incorporated summaries into it. Keep up the good work. スミス ナサニアル (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving this post un-indented because it's getting a little crazy, but also because I have news: My new version of the page is nearly complete. At this stage, the only thing it's lacking is summaries, for which I would be happy for anyone to give their own. They don't have to be perfect at first; one can always edit them for tone and brevity once they, y'know, exist. It also might not hurt to give some more specific citations when it comes to ISBNs, release dates, and plot details, but we don't have to worry about that quite so much until we start thinking of putting it up for a peer review. In the event of said peer review, the story dates might also have to go unless we can convince unsympathetic reviewers of their value, but like I said, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. So... what do you think? --Julian Grybowski (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The books with the double ISBNs need to be explained though. I'm guessing they had special editions?--SeizureDog (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ref is already there, at the top of the column. I suppose it could be moved down to where the double ISBNs actually are... --Julian Grybowski (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there are no objections at present (and since we're not planning on a peer review just yet), I'm going to go ahead and post the new version as-is, without summaries. I'm sure that they'll get done eventually, as that's what always seems to happen on Wikipedia. I might have some time myself to work on it after I get back from Tokyo, but for the time being this should do. --Julian Grybowski (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)