Talk:Megatokyo/Archive 1

Bio vs. Summary?
I have had a fairly small section on the Largo character reverted twice now because a user felt that it was too much information and that it extended from a "summary" to a "bio". I don't feel this way, and obviously this is simply a difference in opinion, but to my credit let me point out that my contribution was less than a paragraph long, was a decent piece of information regarding the event that Largo has experienced earlier in his life that hugely affects his behavior and thoughts towards women (see strip number 849 to strip number 859 for the explanation of the event in the comic) that I concisely reflected under Largo's summary. I don't feel that including this section is going overboard with information, nor do I feel that it is any less important than the information written about his "l33t" tendancies and obsession with beer. It's a small, pertinent fact about the character that in my opinion does not extend the summary any further than what it should be. The reversion in question is listed on the history page, as "13:17, 18 May 2006 Hargle (Revert to previous version by JimmyBlackwing. Sorry to remove your hard work, but "Largo" does *not* need more information, as it is supposed to be a summary, not a full character bio)"


 * Here's the thing: Largo's section is already going past what has been suggested in the article's peer review, which makes your addition, though insightful, extremely excessive. For example, your edit included the following:

"Largo appears to have difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, and often incorporates or imagines things he has seen on television or played in a computer game into real life, particularly zombies and the undead. One could question, though, just how many of Largo's tales are untrue, given that in the story the effects of some highly supernatural phenomenon (such as zombies and- Godzilla-esque monster invasions) have been observed. Nonetheless, when Largo tells his stories of fighting off hordes of hungry zombies or battling gigantic robots, the other characters typically shrug it off and chalk it up to his overactive imagination."


 * This is already covered in the Plot section. Its mentioning in the Plot section is very brief, however, and only takes up the space of 1 sentence. I agree that the possibility of truth in Largo's visions is noteworthy, but the space taken to say so was simply too much for a summary section. It wouldn't be such a huge issue if the article wasn't gearing up to go through FAC, but it is, and complying with suggestions made in peer review is absolutely necessary.


 * The biggest issue here is your speculation on Largo. First off, the sorceress from that section was, in fact, Piro's Endgames character, and the traitorous warrior was Miho's character. Miho was said to have abused the hidden "emotion" statistic of the game to manipulate people, which suggests that the reason for Piro's character following Miho's character into the meadow, and Piro's character saving the life of Miho's character, were some of the results of Miho's cheating. This all falls in line with the described event actually taking place in the world of Endgames, and being a revelation about the long-absent Endgames subplot (as well as detailing how Piro and Largo first met), as opposed to being an allegory of actual happenings. Not to say that your theory is impossible, only that it is just that - a theory, just as what I put forth is. Due to the already large size of Largo's summary section, there is no room to compare theories about his past while still complying with the suggestions made in peer review.


 * If it had not been suggested in peer review that the sections be small, two paragraph summaries, then there would be no problem with this. But as it was, this is far beyond my power to change. JimmyBlackwing 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now why you removed my contribution. Rather than being upset, I'm actually glad there are vigilant users like yourself that are dedicated to upholding the policies and guidelines of the site and, most importantly, making the best articles they can. Thanks for helping me sort it out, friend :D. -JoshM 5/20/2006


 * No problem. Glad I could help. JimmyBlackwing 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who first removed your addition, Pegasus1138 removed it the second time. What I did was change the page back to the version before you edited it, and that version was done by JimmyBlackwing, who was kind enough to explain the reasoning behind the revert to you. Hargle 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Support This Article
Support this article and help it be able to become a featured article.

l33t
First of all, "MegaTokyo" is about as "mainstream" as elfreide jelinek. second of all, "l33t" has never been "mainstreamed" anywhere, certainly not the Internet. - Anonymous (please note this is a message from a registred user VRMaster; this is note put by me, --Kiba 02:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

I think Wikipedia has Megatokyo pinned. Good job, guys. You're as awesome as thinkgeek.com!

Image copyright
Mr. Gallagher is generally quite lenient with use of copies of his strip, as long as they're not sold and he is recognized as the author. Still, I agree that he should probably be asked for permission. --Slowking Man


 * Regarding the image, I don't think "should be regarded as fair use" is good enough unless Wikipedia policy states that it is. The author should probably be contacted, or else the image removed.  Just my $0.02.  -andrewsg at eml.cc, 30 MAR 2004


 * I disagree. Presenting just one strip as a sample cannot be regarded as reproducion and is a fair use. This is the same as quoting some text from books. --Taku 19:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Fair Use' explicitly protects the use of excerpted images or text from a larger work for critical work. An encyclopedic essay that uses a single page from a body of hundreds is clearly using an excerpt for illustrative purposes and is clearly acting within Fair Use. --Eric Burns, websnark.com 15-October-2004


 * If you want to I could ask him... but anyway Slowking Man is right: he explicitly said many times on the forums that the policy is "if name is credited and you're not getting money on it". Maybe a link to one of such posts would suffice? --Lapo Luchini 14:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As part of the megatokyo staff, I'm familiar with what sort of permission we grant on a blanket basis. One strip as an example is absolutely no problem, especially for a work like Wikipedia, that is non-profit and encyclopaedic. --Cortana (server admin for megatokyo)


 * I am the one who added the strip. I think there should be no issue of legality. Whatever the author says, this kind of use should be considered fair use. That said, we can certainly try to be polite and friendly, and it cannot hurt if we inform or ask Piro-san about this. You know he might even what strip he would like to see as an example. So if you can talk with him about this, that would be nice :) --Taku 12:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Manga Style?
So, Megatokyo is not a manga -- but it is an Original English Language manga. Now, that's funny. KyuuA4 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is technically a manga-style comic, there is no "manga style" (as manga is so diverse), only American and Japanese artists. If there is a difference anyway, I think this more strongly reflects an American style.


 * Well, it looks like manga for me, has those big eyes :), is black-and-white, takes place in Japan and google (http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Comics/Manga/Independent/Online_Manga/) also thinks it's a manga. --Taw


 * I would say this falls under the manga category due to its non-traditional page style, its on-going plot (as opposed to a number of situational jokes with no plot) and the clear influence of manga on the work itself (if not on the style). Secondly, there is a great variety in Japanese manga art styles alone (Compare the art of Love Hina to that of say Doraemon.)  It might not be a JAPANESE manga, but it's certainly an "online manga."  (I personally however would give little creedence to what ODP/dmoz.org classifies a comic). --Pipian


 * The shift from "four-panel" to "manga" over time seems to have been deliberate, which certainly should be highlighted in the entry. I've tweaked the criticism section slightly, in part to highlight the differences between those styles and also to make it clear that, while some have criticized the evolution, many more people have taken strongly to it. One has to be careful of critical bias not outweighing popular sentiment, after all. (And as I wrote the passage in question, it's my own critical bias I'm nerfing, here.) --Eric Burns


 * Every manga (or manga-influenced) artist goes through evolutions. Just read through some Ah My Goddess manga and see the evolutions in design styles there. KyuuA4 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as Gallagher himself doesn't call himself a manga-ka-- he aspires to be one, Megatokyo can't be called a manga although it tries to be one. Manga, in the original usage in Japanese, labels any published comic or sequential art as manga but in the English language term, manga points specifically to the Japanese comic. Doujinshi is also a label I've heard used for Megatokyo and frankly, the same applies. Doujinshi is fan manga but usually it's a manga by a fan based ona specific manga or anime franchise. Although some may say that the themes and concepts are clichés or homages to certain anime and manga series, it does not mean that Megatokyo is a doujinshi as well. Frankly, I think for accuracy's sake, Megatokyo and the many webcomics out there similar in style should be labelled as manga-influenced or manga-style but not actual manga. They are original works and imitate many of the forms that manga takes but it is not manga, by far. --kainee, 21:04, 03-30-2005


 * Well, just because most doujinshi is fanfic in effect, doesn't mean that all of it is. Heck, Masamune Shirow's Black Magic was originally published as doujinshi; the same is true of most of Yoshitoshi ABe's printed work, such as White Rain or the original Haibane Renmei stories. There's also the fact that Gallagher does refer to Megatokyo as doujinshi, right at the top of the web page. --Ray Radlein 02:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with that argument imho is that manga itself needs to be defined. This is subjective, of course, but I don't view non-Japanese comics as manga-- even if they have the same sort of style. If anyone disagrees with that, then I'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I need to clarify the doujinshi definition which is basically amateur manga. Usually doujinshi develops through doujinshi circles in Japan which vary in quality from amateur level to near professional ones. This is a term that reflects a social custom in Japan and so, I believe it rightly belongs to the Japanese manga industry. Just as you can't really attach the term comic on manga because comic itself is an adjective that shows the roots of the American comic industry- the funny pages. The Japanese themselves were influenced by the European and American comics too, but they found their own style based on those influences and formed their own distinct image.


 * By the same extension, I really can't consider Megatokyo as doujinshi, regardless of whether or not Fred Gallagher himself thinks it is. Just because someone says something is, doesn't mean it's so. Again, doujinshi is a japanese term that the Japanese use to describe amateur manga. Just because someone outside of Japan uses the manga style, it doesn't mean that they are manga or doujinshi. What I'm saying is, Fred Gallagher is an American artist who has been heavily influenced by manga and doujinshi but it doesn't mean that just because he creates a comic similar in style that he belongs in that genre. It's like someone making an Impressionistic painting today and claiming that it is Impressionist. Of course, people can disagree with my opinion and I'm sure that they will. But I really don't see how Megatokyou can be labeled as a full manga or doujinshi. I would say that I see it as an American manga-style webcomic. --kainee, 22:09, 3-30-2005


 * Sadly, the categorization of art has never ever been "scientific". Thus, it is prone to subjectivity. KyuuA4 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "drawn in Manga style" sentence, shouldn't this link to "The manga style" on the Manga page rather than just linking the word Manga to the Manga page?


 * Gallagher ranted about this recently. Rather than further confusing the issue, maybe we should simply mention that its categorization is debatable and link to him?68.115.175.124 23:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * His rant stated that wether or not Megatokyo qualified as a manga was debatable. However, it is definitely drawn in the style of a manga, and he does not deny or dispute that.--OniOokamiAlfador 01:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, leaving this topic as "debatable" isn't clear, as opinions come from both camps. Personally, Megatokyo is a manga just because it looks like one and runs a story typically found in manga.  I've run into many opinions involving the "Japanese origin" being a major requirement to manga. If a work is in the style of a manga, then why not call it a manga?  Because the creator is not Japanese?  Yea... sure. Right... KyuuA4 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, use of the term "manga-style" helps clear that up. In Japan, manga means all comics, whereas in America it only means Japanese comics. So there's a lot of discontinuity there. --Masamage 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Character articles
Do we really need articles on the individual characters? It's kind of unneeded to make these articles when there isn't a lot of info to put in the articles in the first place. Some of the links that do work don't even go to articles on the actual characters. --LGagnon


 * I'm with you. Until these characters become notable outside of Megatokyo, we can leave the red links out. --PMC 04:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First, without red links people will not know things need to be written; secondly, we have lots of pages about fictional characters; thirdly, this isn't a print encyclopedia with space constraints, it can be as comprehensive as it wants to be. (Including covering `trivial' matters; it is hardly our place to judge what is important.)


 * These things have been written: we have character bios in the article already. And many of the fictional character pages we have are unneeded, as these would be. And Wikipedia does judge what is important; multiple articles on the same subject aren't, and shouldn't be made. Such things hurt the respectibility of Wikipedia, and are thus supposed to be avoided. On a related note, the Miho article should be merged into this one. --LGagnon


 * I don't think so. The bios in the article are one-sentence summaries and many people have a lot to say about MT's characters; second, the Miho article is much larger than the one-sentence summaries and we'd have to write longer in-article bios for all of them (which isn't really bad, just inconvenient). We have lots of pages for obscure Trek characters, even ones nobody has heard of outside of Startrek geekdom. Personal vanity pages detract from Wikipedia; but IMHO if there is one person other than the author who thinks something is worth having an article about and devotes the time to make such an article, then it is worthy for inclusion. No way it's ever going to be a featured article, of course, but that doesn't matter.

We can't very well have a universal compendium of human knowledge without information about fiction. (Although I agree that data about fiction should be clearly marked - as this is.)


 * It would be much better to have longer in-article bios than several articles. It isn't inconvient at all; a simple click through the TOC can get you to wherever in the article you want, so it shouldn't be a problem for readers.
 * And just because we have several obscure Trek character articles doesn't mean we need several other obscure character articles. If the info in the Trek articles is so important, then it should become a "Characters from Star Trek" article instead of several separate ones. As for MT, there isn't enough characters to warrant such an article, so the bios should remain here.
 * And I agree we should have info on fiction. However, we don't need several articles on the same subject. An individual character only warrants an individual article if the character has a profound effect on society (which is still questionable; character articles tend to just repeat info from the source article). MT, while popular on the net, has not affected the society as a whole, and thus has no characters that are significant enough to get their own article. --LGagnon


 * `Profound effect on society'? That is the most absurd definition for `worthy-to-be-in-Wikipedia' I've ever heard. It certainly does not seem to be in the inclusive spirit of the Wiki; but if you'd like to show me that in one of the `philosophy' documents here...


 * This may be an inclusive encyclopedia, but not to a ridiculous extent. We don't need individual articles for every single fictional character that exists (the Trek guys are wrong in doing such), and we don't need them for every single major character in a work of fiction either. And I said that "profound effect on society" is still a debatable reasoning. Wikipedia does have guidelines for what should and shouldn't get an article, and I shouldn't have to point it out for you; check the Community Portal for that information.
 * And for future reference, please do not try to turn these discussions into flame wars. Insulting someone else's opinion is not productive in the least. --LGagnon

MT-Bashing
The strip has received quite a bit of criticism among other webcomic artists and fans. Should we at all address this? --Paul Soth


 * Maybe. What exactly did you have in mind? --LGagnon


 * Well, perhaps a brief coverage of common complaints with some rebuttal to even things out. One thing that I can't help but notice is that often MT bashing becomes a bandwagon affair. If anyone wants to hit this, I'd recommend looking at the messageboards of other webcomics for research. --Paul Soth


 * Bashing on message boards probably shouldn't be mentioned. Just about everything gets bashed on message boards. Maybe if you can find more professional opinions, then that would work, but random opinions from message boards wouldn't help. --LGagnon


 * Mr. Gallagher has received criticism from some fellow webcomic artists for being too haughty, having an irregular update schedule, drawing poorly, etc. I agree that message boards are largely irrelevant; few are exactly bastions of academia. --Slowking Man


 * Well, I do wonder if the criticism it receives nowadays is a result of MT being up among the top echelons of webcomics, particularly that of manga-inspired comics. In turn, it appears that a number of people attack it in order to appear avant-guard and the like. However, common complains include the story pacing, confusing direction, and it's fans. A good example of an anti-MT bandwagon can be found at: http://www.ponju.net/index.php?s=28d30eca5db5bfa38a9fdcefc4bb6792&showtopic=30816 -- Paul Soth


 * Actually, the core criticisms of Megatokyo focus more on the elaborate nature of its plot, the erratic update schedule, the conceptual shift from comic-strip to manga page, the greater emphasis on story, and the slow pacing. While there is no doubt some criticism leveled out of jealousy or because of Megatokyo's popularity, much of the criticism stems from real issues surrounding Megatokyo and its production. --Eric Burns, Websnark.com 15-October-2004


 * Don't forget all the ire directed twards the fans as well. And naturally, a lot of anti-otaku sentiment comes into play as well. --Paul Soth 15:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're going to acknowledge criticisms, why not just take the page down? I know of more people who dislike Megatokyo for one reason or another than are actually fans of it. There are a bevy of anti-megatokyo sites out there (http://www.fuckmegatokyo.com) as it is.


 * Okay, so the link in my last comment no longer exists. Anyway, if you look at many of the other major webcomic's pages (sluggy freelance, penny arcade (comic), PvP) none of them have a section on criticisms. Granted, Gallagher is under a lot of criticism but why is there a need to highlight that? The Penny Arcade page doesn't talk about the Strawberry Shortcake incident, the PvP page doesn't talk about how Scott Kurtz tends to be the webcomic whipping boy, etc.


 * Why not just relabel the section Criticism? It's called Criticism and Praise, but I only detect 2 sentences that praise anything related to the comic. I can see where the criticism is coming from talking about frustration with Gallagher's infrequent updates (though I have no problem with it), and issues with Caston's departure.


 * However, I do take issue with the fact that people claim that the comic isn't funny anymore. We've already established the fact that the comic is not a gag-a-day comic anymore - I would say it's more of a comedy-drama. Several people I know read the comic because they're interested in the story/characters, not because they're looking for a laugh. Granted, humor is still appreciated, but just because this is a webcomic doesn't mean it has to be funny every day (intentionally or otherwise).


 * Similarly, the claim that Gallagher is indulging in Mary Sueism is true by definition - Piro is a stand-in for Gallagher, has many similar personality traits, and certainly any fictional story is a fantasy of its author. However, I think the entry (or those mt-bashers who the entry refers to) are certainly biased against Gallagher. The PA characters are stand-ins for their respective authors, but certainly no one believes them to be violent people.


 * I agree with the above poster - if PA and the lightning rod that is Scott Kurtz don't have criticism sections, then why should Megatokyo? All this does is add fuel to the mt-bashing bandwagon. I think this section should be removed entirely, while the plot section sees an expansion. That would certainly be far more relevant to anyone seeking information rather than opinions on this subject anyway. Berselius 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Alike others above it seems, the feeling I'm left with after reading the page is that someone doesn't like Fred Gallagher. It doesn't seem so much a critique about Megatokyo directly but rather what Fred does and has done with it. I think the Criticism and so called 'praise' section should either be removed or completely edited to actually include a fair amount of praise in comparison with the criticism. It may just be me, but I get the feeling that the person who wrote it is a reader who preferred MT before Rodney left. Fair enough, but on wikipedia the writers personal preference should not come out so strong. Make a website, start a forum instead. Leave just the facts here and let everyone make their own decision from there. -Nicole
 * 01:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe there is more MT-critique then praise simply because there's more reason to give critique? Let's face it, there are some things very "out-of-whack" with Megatokyo as a comic, despite the fact there are a few good things about it. MT has got some serious problems and quirks and there's no reason why we shouldn't comment on them. What else do you suggest? That we ignore some bad points on purpose to make the comic look better? Maybe change the wording a little so it looks better on the comic and the author? If you want the general opinion on the comic here to improve, you should talk to the author, not us. :: DarkLordSeth 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think, the way the article is written, it has a lot of "Some people dislike X" when there are just as many people who like MT that way. I think the truly NPOV thing to do is just say "Megatokyo is X" except with truly opinionated (yet important) statements like the "After Rodney left, Largo seems like an afterthought to some." Nifboy 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, we need to consider the "average joe" perspective when we run around claiming what people IN GENERAL like and dislike. The majority of MT readers like prolonged storylines, slow progression and love Icosahedrons. If they didn't the majority of 'em wouldn't be reading MT in the first place. (Personally, I'm too damn curious to stop reading it...) Thing is though, that the majority of the people outside of the MT really dislike MT's style, story, pace and character involvement. If Megatokyo was syndicated and printed in a newspaper (and thus be made available to the "average joe") it would fail. Hard. Precisely because of the reasons that are mentioned in the article. :: DarkLordSeth 19:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm saying that we don't want to make any claims about what people IN GENERAL like and dislike, since that road is filled with weasel words and other hairy POV issues. Just say what MT actually is and cover some of the major issues. --Nifboy 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bubblegum Crisis?
The city in Bubblegum Crisis is also called "Megatokyo"... should there be another article or even a disambiguation?


 * Is there a need for such an article? I doubt there is so much info on the city that it needs to have its own article. I suggest you just put info on it in the article for the series. --LGagnon 15:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems proper to make a mention of origin of the term "Megatokyo" in this listing. Fred and Rodney did not coin it, only popularized it.  Proper credit should be given to the Bubblegum Crisis anime for introducing the world to "Megatokyo". -- Berus


 * Do Bubblegum Crisis really invent "Megatokyo"? I think Megatokyo is used like the The city of tokyo was destoryed either by nuclear war or something else. It was than rebuilt into a bigger and better city. Before including that, someone need to verify if it was Bubblegum Crisis that invent the world "Megatokyo". --Kiba 04:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like the sort of thing that, unless Rodney explicitly stated he was referencing BGC when he registered the site, could be conceived without being aware of its use in BGC. I mean, it's not like the "Mega" prefix is uncommon. --Nifboy 04:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The main villain in BGC is named "Largo", and both Rodney and Fred seem to be fans of classic anime such as BGC. I think it's safe to say that they got the word from Bubblegum Crisis. (I also seem to recall one of them saying so, but I couldn't tell you where I read that.) --DenisMoskowitz 14:47, 2005 July 11 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, I took the name "MegaTokyo" from BGC. --Rcaston


 * Thanks, Rodney. DenisMoskowitz 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Western order
Megatokyo uses Western order:. --WhisperToMe 23:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If we're going to say this could we explain what it means? Because you lost me (I'm an ameteur). --RJFJR 04:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * In the West, names are usually given in given name-family name order. For example, in Frank Sinatra, Frank is the given name and Sinatra is the family name, and we say Mr. Sinatra. However, some countries in the East, especially Japan, use the opposite name order (family name-given name). For instance, in Takahashi Rumiko, Rumiko is the given name and Takahashi is the family name, and she is called Ms. Takahashi. My explanation probably is not very good, so see Japanese name and Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for more information. --Josh 05:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's what this is talking about. I thought it was something about what order the panels of a comic page are read in.  Thank you. --RJFJR 12:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't always use Western order: . Note that it says 'Nanasawa Kimiko' in this picture, not 'Kimiko Nanasawa'.  I think that after a while, Fred started using the Japanese order.--Tally Solleni 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the comic is somewhat inconsistent -- which could reflect the variety in characters as much as anything else. But it's been my experience that the fans generally use Japanese order, and Fred has been keeping to it more lately, so it seems the best choice. 71.57.111.238 07:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Character pages/Forum details
IMHO, both character pages and the details on the forum should be moved to seperate subpages. Very nice, very clean and a very wikipedia-like way of representing stuff. The character don't justify articles of their own and the forums really should be moved to their own seperate subpage as well. Loads of people love the comic but couldn't possibly care less about the forums and the associated community. If this post doesn't get flamed to bits or doesn't have too many people disagreeing with it, I'll eventually move the existing character articles to subpages of the main Megatokyo article, along with the specifics about the forums. --DarkLordSeth 22:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Trim" the forum stuff down, but leave the useful stuff in the article. I've always thought it a bit useless, but it's nice to have at least a short explanation of the major boards. We don't need admin names or the names of frequent posters for particular boards, and the so-called notable threads and clans sections have got to go.


 * I'm thinking of a nice little list with MT main characters, along with a links to seperate subpages for more character information. As for the forums, a little tidbit of intro will do, with a link to another subpage for detailed information. --DarkLordSeth 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The forums don't deserve a subpage. Very few if ANY forums at all deserve a subpage. (And I hope to Wales you mean subpage as in Forums of Megatokyo and not Megatokyo/Forums) Trim the information down into a line (MAX two) per forum. KEEP said information in the main Megatokyo article. Trash the stupid tidbits about each forum's admins, prevalant posters, clans and "notable threads". Pointless. Don't need 'em. --Premeditated Chaos 07:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it has been suggested that the forum tidbits should be trimmed down to the important parts. Which means that the entire forums section pretty much has to go, aye. But I was thinking of using Megatokyo/Miho Tohya style subpages, but I sense a certain sense of non-agreement on that bit. Just seems like a nice and clean way of solving things; Besides giving the Wikipedia a nice hierarchal index of MT, it would also satisfy the people who think that characters of "less-then-famous" works do not deserve their own article. Would like to hear your point on this. --DarkLordSeth 12:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No. We don't use subpages. From the Glossary: "Do not use subpages in the main article space." As well, Subpages gives some background on subpages. Essentially, they've been found unworkable. Don't use them. As for the forums, I think every forum should have a little sentence description. That's all they need. For example, "Ask Shoujo Manga: A forum where users can come to seek answers to their problems in life." (Or some such.) We need to get rid of the notable threads and clan sections, period. It's useless, as are names of admins and frequent posters. Basically, I want to pare down the forums section so that each forum gets a line of description and not a separate section with a header. We should leave it in Megatokyo, it definitely does not deserve Megatokyo forums. Not yet. So, restated for clarity: delete all unnotable crap. Trim down forum descriptions. Do not split into forum article. -- Premeditated Chaos 02:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, never came across that little tidbit before. Ah well, guess the whole subpage idea can be scrapped then. Would have sworn I read on some other pages that subpages were practical but I don't want to get TOO involved in the community, considering all the mud that gets flung around and all that kind of stuff. I might not be too up-to-date on things like this, so bear with me, aye? Anyways, I'll give the article a good beating with the cleanup stick soon, which will prolly include the removal of the entire forum section. If people really want to know what the forums are about, they'll just visit them. Waiting a bit longer so others can voice their concerns as well. --DarkLordSeth 11:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I think we should keep a sort of quick reference to the boards. Just the board name and a description if it isn't obvious. "Ask Shoujo Manga: Megatokyo's version of Dear Abby" type descriptions, nothing major. As for the community, don't be scared of us. You'll find a lot more WikiLove getting tossed around here than mud. *grins* We don't bite too bad. --Premeditated Chaos 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe of the busier boards and/or non-descriptive ones. Just took a look at the forums and all of them seem pretty descriptive of themselves. Would be a bit pointless to add lines like "Story Discussions: Discussions about the Megatokyo storyline.", right? Just a little tidbit of information that the forums are active and well populated, along with a nice external link to the forums themselves. The forum names themselves are pretty much self-explanatory and describing what's hot, what's not and who and what is popular on the forums is all very NPOV anyways. One person's popular thread might be another person's reason to claw his or her eyes out. As for the community bit, I was referring to the MT community. I got a bit more faith in the Wikipedia community, because it isn't filled with a small army of rabid fanboys and fangirls. Still, best not to get too involved, methinks. I tend to be more or less of a catalyst regarding "mud slinging" incidents. :P --DarkLordSeth 02:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. So in short: We'll leave the names of the boards, along with an external link to the main boards page only. We'll take out all the board descriptions. We should leave short, one-line descriptions for non-obvious board names such as "Ask Shoujo Manga". We'll also remove anything regarding "notable posters", "notable threads", "clans" and "admins". Add note that the forums are active and very well-populated. (By the way, I think you mean POV up there...NPOV is neutal point of view, and "what's hot what's not" type information is not neutral =) ) How's that sound to you? --Premeditated Chaos 07:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan to me, especially the bits about notable threads and the like. And yes, POV instead of NPOV. I got an excuse, it was late! Really! I'm innocent! --DarkLordSeth 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * lol... Don't worry about it. I do some weird things when I'm up late too. Arite so now that we're agreed... we can set to work on the forums! Score. =D --[[User:Premeditated Chaos| Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just trimmed the sections down a little. How does it look? I kind of tried to pare them down into the most basic of details. As you can see I stopped halfway through...its late and I have to get off soon, so I figured I'd just quit and leave a note. Good, bad, or ugly? --[[User:Premeditated Chaos| Premeditated Chaos 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, saw it. Nice and lean forum descriptions now! I suggest trimming down a bit more, removing the actual headers considering they take up alot of space. Thinking about something like a list with bolded/strong emphasis on the name and a small description in plain text. Like we currently have for characters! I'll go smack the article around a bit more with the pretty stick after this. --DarkLordSeth 19:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh! The headers. *blinks* Its that low-flying WikiLove, totally makes you forget everything. I thought there was something I wasn't changing that I should have. =P Otherwise, it looks very cool. =D -- Premeditated Chaos 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have that too with WikiLove, hurts like heck. You feeling better yet? :) By the way, going to clean up the forums section a bit more later today. There's still some fluff left that has to be dealt with and it almost looks perfect! I'll be happy once I can cram down one forum description per line of text! --DarkLordSeth 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge any and all character subpages into Megatokyo and trim all ridiculously pointless details. (An example off the top of my head being something like "Many fans speculate that pizza makes Tohya evil." And so on.) Only when the the character descriptions become obscenely bloated with encyclopedic information ("Tohya likes pizza and has explicitly said it makes her evil" as opposed to "Many fans speculate that pizza makes Tohya evil") should we consider splitting the characters into a new page. --Premeditated Chaos 23:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * MT characters are not well-known enough really to deserve more then a subpage. Besides, I don't really consider the idea of Miho being evil because of pizzas is really quite encyclopedic. It's more likely because of her posessing the Necrowombicon, anyways. --DarkLordSeth 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's almost exactly what I said. Any MT characters with separate articles (I think only Tohya at the moment, but I could be wrong) should first be merged into Megatokyo. Then if the characters section OVERALL somehow gets TOO big for Megatokyo, we should split it into Characters from Megatokyo. ONLY if it gets too big. NO MT character should have their own page. As for the pizza example, I was pulling something out of nowhere. It was an analogy. Encyclopedic information is stuff that's explicitly stated in the canon of the comic, OR stuff that's been explicitly stated by the author. (For example, that Junpei used to be the ninja at Japanese Customs) Non-encyclopedic stuff would be fan speculation, or fanfiction, or stuff the author joking about. (For instance, a statement like "Many fans speculate Junpei was the Customs ninja because..."). -- Premeditated Chaos 07:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, okay then, just wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing 'ere. :) --DarkLordSeth 12:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you agree with me then? To reiterate more clearly: Merge any and all character pages into Megatokyo. Only split them out into Megatokyo characters if the section gets too big to fit on the page and nothing can be trimmed without harming the encyclopedic value of the description. Yes/no? --Premeditated Chaos 02:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. However, only main characters will be put on the article itself. Characters from minor or forgotten storylines should pretty much be ignored. Quality over quantity. --DarkLordSeth 11:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think anyone with a name and more than two lines of dialogue should be in the article. We are trying to provide something of a complete and handy reference to the story, and if we lack information on some characters its neither handy nor complete. They don't need a huge description, really. A line or two will do. Really minor characters can of course be ignored until they do something important. --Premeditated Chaos 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Problem is, MT got more characters then usual. Something to do with Fred creating a dozen barely-related storylines and focussing for weeks on one storyline while completely neglecting another, coupled with the inability to follow a schedule. If we were to give every character that had more then two lines in the comic a small descripting, there wouldn't be much to clean up. Hell, we'd prolly have to expand the characters section instead. Just Piro, Largo && Seraphim should do for now. If it really matters to people, I suggest dumping it all in Megatokyo Characters or something similiar. --DarkLordSeth 02:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, just "Piro Largo and Seraphim" will not do it. What about Ping? Tohya? Erika? The Idol-chick-whose-name-I-can't-recall-right-now? They're important too. If we really can't fit it all in the article, let's resort to putting it into Megatokyo characters. We really can't just remove characters that are vital to entire storylines. (The whole last arc was, after all, pretty much centered on the Idol chick) I'm all for splitting it and cleaning it up. Shall we? --[[User:Premeditated Chaos|Premeditated Chaos 07:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The "idol chick" IS Erika, you dolt! --Strannik 23:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * /rolls eyes. Sorry, I forgot that people aren't allowed to make mistakes. Excuse my imperfection, oh great one. --[[User:Premeditated Chaos|Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that MT has so dang MANY "important" characters. Fred might be a good artist but he's a pretty poor writer IMHO for letting the comic end up in a sort of time-expanded limbo. One day in the comic takes roughly 2 or 3 months of drawings; makes for extremely slow progression of the comic. This, combined with the 4 or 5 or so different storylines running at the same time, really doesn't do a lot of good for anyone other then the absolute main characters. The underage schoolgirls only feature in the "drawing lessons/bookbag" storyline, one that pretty much ended. (or so it seems) The weird goth girl and Ping mainly feature in the "Endgames" storyline, with an occasional showing in the "Great Teacher Largo" and "Idol" storylines, though the latter two having become pretty much the same now. We should really make mention of several main characters that appear in all storylines and move the rest to Megatokyo Characters IMHO, because we otherwise end up with the same clutter that we have now. And be careful, the 'WikiLove' is flying low today, courtsey of Strannik. --DarkLordSeth 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * /is smacked upside the head by low-flying WikiLove. Thank you, Mr. Strannik. As for the characters: let's have consistency. If we move some of them to Megatokyo characters, we should just move all of them for simplicity, and leave a note at Megatokyo. --Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gods of Heaven and Earth, the drama, THE DRAMA ;)
 * Seriously, mates, I may have been a bit crass, but, really, you shouldn't take it this hard.
 * As for characters, maybe we should make separate pages for major characters and move all minor ones into a single separate article. Personally, transpanting the whole section just to save some space doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --Strannik 18:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No Megatokyo character is popular or mainstream enough to deserve a separate article only for themself. (Such as Tohya Miho or Ping-chan) We should either leave them all on the page (I don't like that) or move them all to Characters of Megatokyo. --Premeditated Chaos 18:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ooo, that looks painfull... *hands Premeditated Chaos an ice pack* There you go! :D Anyways, alright, for consistency's sake we'll leave the large list of characters intact, trim down on info a bit and merge already existing character pages into Megatokyo Characters. Then, once additional character information becomes available, people to write it down in Megatokyo Characters ( or whatever capitalisation is preferred on here ) and use nice Megatokyo Characters style links, which can be cunningly disguised through the use of pipelining, which would make it look like this: Miho Tohya. This will leave the character list on the main article intact and consistent, will remove and prevent every character ending up with their own article and it will be nice and clear. And we can add minor characters there as well, as is suggested by Strannik. How's about that? On a different note, I should type faster; you already edited it while I was trying to save changes! Ngh! --DarkLordSeth 19:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yay for ice packs =) Brilliant plan. I'll go make Megatokyo characters and start merging. --Premeditated Chaos 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I'll go help out by cleaning up unimportant bits on the main page later, maybe work on the individual characters at Megatokyo characters... Unless you're planning to give every character their own header, we'll have to use some other trick to allow linking from Megatokyo directly to the correct character. Something involving DIV tags with IDs. I'll get into it once we agree on the new article, 'kay? PS, can I have my icepack back now? :P --DarkLordSeth 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The majority of editing to both Megatokyo and Megatokyo characters is done now. Well, msot of it, anyways. Anyone got some nice constructive criticism on the current layout of either pages? :) --DarkLordSeth 00:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I know I'm just an unregistered user (therefore my opinion doesn't count), but could you guys make an article dedicated exclusively to the Megatokyo forums ala Something Awful Forums? It was very interesting to read about it.


 * Opinion does matter, actually. Anyways, I don't think it's the very best of ideas, considering Megatokyo is quite a niche thing on the internet. Sure, it's nice and relatively well known in it's own niche, but Something Awful along with their forums are so much bigger, well-known and notorious that they warrent their own article. The SA forums produce a notable stream of photoshops and comedy every week while the MT forums produce... Well... Nothing. This would make it hard to justify an article about the MT forums, seperate from the main MT page. --DarkLordSeth 12:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There may be a good reason for this, but I'm curious as to why the "Party System" and "Hard Questions Room" "no longer exist on the boards."? They still look very much alive on the MT Forums to me.  Is it because they are only accessable if you're logged in as a registered MT Forums user?  Just curious.  --Baltakatei 04:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure, that's what it said on the article, but change it if it's true. --User:Premeditated Chaos 08:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll get onto it; I think I got an old unused MT forum accoutn somewhere in cold-storage. Otherwise I'll just reg one to see what they are currently up to over there. Also... *pokes PMC with a maple tree twig!* --DarkLordSeth 16:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Pages Tohya Miho or Ping-chan should be deleted now since they are no longer maintaned and are both unlinked from article pages. However, the talk pages still need to be moved.

History
Some interesting history released by Fred on his rant. See Saturday - January 15, 2005 Rant, Strip ID 661         -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to read it but Fred's endless whining made my eyes bleed and caused my spleen to implode... Ugh... --DarkLordSeth 11:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Disgruntled fans. They're a plague, mate. --Strannik 06:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about but I can't help thinking of Steve Irwin now, because you ended your line with "mate"... :( --DarkLordSeth 11:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Megatokyo characters versus Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist
The Fullmetal Alchemist article also is going through a similar Character section trimming that this article went through a while ago. I am now wondering about naming conventions: from what I gather on this talk page, everyone used a link to Megatokyo characters so the page ended up being there. However, the Fullmetal Alchemist article links to Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist, which is obviously named in a different style. Is there something in Naming Conventions that addresses this, and if not, should we standardize Character Page namings? --Ambush Commander 20:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should have a naming convention. I've also seen "on," "in," "within," and "from" used in character page titles, so the case could probably be made for just "X characters" but I don't like that because the title is used like an adjective. --Nifboy 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You should probably take a look at WikiProject Anime and manga. It involves these kinds of naming conventions. --Josh 15:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd criticism

 * Finally, some critics complain that the fictional Japan in Megatokyo does not resemble real-life Japan [...]

Is it really necessary that the article records inane criticism such as this, complete with a discussion? I can easily accept that controversial views of the comic are reported here, but this is like saying, "some people resent that Casablanca is set in the time of World War II". --SKopp 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) character


 * Delete. Now that the section in question has been deleted and reverted with the comment "such criticism has been made," I have to ask who has actually made such a comment, and why is such criticism even worth mentioning in the first place? --Nifboy 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, perhaps I reverted your changes a bit hastily. I researched those claims a bit more, and found that they were originally made by Shibboleth and seem to have been expanded by others since then. However, I cannot find any discussion, facts, or references supporting his claims on any talk pages or their histories, and it was one of his first edits as a registered user, so I must conclude that they were a misguided mistake and acquiesce. Please accept my apologies. --Josh 05:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Possible external link
A group of people from the Megatokyo Story Discussions board are preparing a wiki on MT itself called Wikitokyo, located at. (The wiki currently being linked is for the community that's grown up around the forums; it doesn't document the comic itself.) Is it okay to link this? I'd normally just do it, but I'm one of the WT admins, so I don't want to be accused of vanity linking. &mdash;Brent Dax 17:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There are worse things to be linking to. --Nifboy 18:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Aye. If'n it be a wiki with actual content on MT itself, go for it. --maru 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Characters
I've merged all info on the characters on Megatokyo characters. For what it's worth, I find the article too negative, focusing mainly on various criticisms against MT. --Radiant_* 12:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree the article seems to focus on the criticism more than the story. I believe we should create another section on this article and add in the info on the characters and how they are in the story (example: Kimiko's relationship with Piro). --User:Psi edit


 * Perhaps a "Plot" section, similar to those found on the Sluggy Freelance article and countless fan sites? --Nifboy 03:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assessment
More recent featured article, very strong. Hiding Talk 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)