Talk:Megatokyo/Archive 3

Character with backpack
Who is the character with the turtle backpack? Chris 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a link and Ill answer. Im a large Megatokyo fan. -- Psi edit 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He means Miho — as a larger and more visible Mt fan -- Sparky 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. The reason I ask is, the character was based on my Wife, and since her hit-and-run I couldn't find the character's name. Domo arigato. Chris 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bounty board challenge
I've put up $50 dollars to donate to the Wikimedia foundation if this can be turned into a featured article by the end of the year. Pegasus1138 Talk 13:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

translations
from the fact that there was an isolated ref link it looks like their used to be a section for listing the languages Megatokyo has been translated into but has since been removed. Some more info should probably be added about the translation languages. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Character
I disagree with the modification in the character subsection removing the links and simply routing the character pages all to the bulk megatokyo characters page. I find that for a person who is unaquainted with megatokyo it would be much more dificult to look down to that subsection then have to find that particular character on the bulk page. Linking through the seperate characters subsections and using the template as a navigator bar was much simpler and overall better system for navigating through the character pages Vcelloho 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * never mind the only remaining problewm is that dom and ed are not on the main character page Vcelloho 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article
Do people feal that this article is ready to be put up for featured article status? I think it is and if others think that it is this article should be put back up for Featured Article Submission. Vcelloho 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it could make it through FA. Personally, I'd like to see the plot beefed up, but that'd probably kill its FA chances. >_< --maru  (talk)  contribs 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who will work on the objections? For Megatokyo to pass, someone must address all objections during the FA trail.--Kiba 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely not up to FA standards, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm getting to the point where I can't find any more changes to make (I actually work on this article a lot, just when I'm logged out). I suggest sending it through Peer Review again, in order to get a better idea of what its problems are at this time. JimmyBlackwing 09:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in "Criticism and praise"
The "Criticism and praise" section is absolutely filled with weasel words. There is only one source cited in the entire thing, with the rest being a pile of opinions given form with what amounts to quotes from Avoid weasel words. Something needs to be done about it if this article is going to be suggested for FA. Hargle 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the the section of the article itself is subjective in nature(speaking about an audience's reception), I'm not sure what the issue is, aside from lack of sources.--Vercalos 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent article edits of dubious quality
There have been some edits to the article recently that I heavily disagree with. Since the recent changes that attempted to revert to previous edits were themselves reverted, and I do not wish to start an edit war, I'm taking it to the talk page.


 * There is now only one paragraph in the header, with the second paragraph being moved into the "History" section. The paragraph contained overview-styled writing and things that don't even pertain to Megatokyo's history. One paragraph as the header for an article just doesn't work, and that paragraph was important in giving a good overview of the series.


 * The "Chapters" subsection from the "Plot" section has been moved into the "Books" section, which has thus been renamed "Books and Online." I disagree with this for several reasons. For example, the "Books" section existed to cover Megatokyo's publishing in the first place, and the important details about its online status are covered in the header. Also, a bit of the "Chapters" subsection was inexplicably left behind in the "Plot" section: "The gaps in the strip number indicate omake manga or other nonplot related strips. Chapter 0 was not given a title in the web version but the book version retroactively gave it the above title." This is just messy editing, although putting this into the "Books and Online" section wouldn't look nice, either.


 * The sentence recently added about the plot in the header is just dreadful: "Megatokyo centers around Piro a 20 something year old boy who is obsessed with manga and his friend Largo and their adventures in the city of Tokyo, Japan." This sentence has a lack of punctuation to the extent that it actually states that "Piro" is "obsessed with his friend Largo." However, when an IP tried to improve it their edit was reverted.

I propose reverting the first 2 changes back to the older versions, and heavily rewriting the final one. I hope we can come to an agreement. JimmyBlackwing 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My edits (to which you are referring were taken from suggestions on the current peer review to get this up to featured status. Pegasus1138 Talk 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize that this article went up for peer review again. However, after reading the suggestions, I do not see any pertaining to the first 2 changes of yours listed here that I had a problem with. These edits, in my view, will actually decrease the chances of this article being featured. Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind them? JimmyBlackwing 03:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The one in the intro was trying to expand the information about the webcom in the intro pargraph since it doesn't say much about the comic itself. The other one was trying to compress the sections because there are too many useless sections currently in the article. Pegasus1138 Talk  04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest editing in some additional information on the comic to the header, while not removing the old stuff. A header needs to be concise, but not so much that it gives up important details, which those happened to be. While I agree that some of the stuff in that second paragraph would fit into the "History" section, the paragraph as a whole is completely out of place in there. If you really feel that it should be moved, then only a part of it should be merged into the "History" section, with additional information being written in for the new paragraphs formed by the split.


 * As for the "Chapters" subsection, your edit simply moved it from one section to another, while leaving parts of it behind. If you think it's useless, then you should either find another subsection to merge it into or delete it, and since it contains relevant information it's better to leave it in the article as is. I believe it should be moved back and the section renamed, as it had much more to do with the "Plot" section than the "Books" section, and "Books and Online" just doesn't look right. JimmyBlackwing 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the way I'm doing things then sofixit but since all your contributions have been to reverse and criticize the way I'm doing things I am skeptical of your goals and assuming good faith only goes so far. Pegasus1138 Talk 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was simply trying to avoid an edit war, which I thought may have happened because of your reaction to the IPs' edits, but if that's the way you feel so be it. Editing this article is nothing new to me.JimmyBlackwing 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Character Modification

 * I understand why the characters subsection was removed however I tend to disagree with simply merging the characters into the plot section. I would opt for a character set up as seen with Calvin and Hobbes or The Adventures of Tintin both of which I wish to point out are former featured articles.Vcelloho. Also with the new set up the Character navigation bar becomes very unhelpful. 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As an option I would suggest removing Piro, Largo, Kimiko and Erika from the Main Characters section and placing them in a character section on the megatokyo page. The the former Main Charcters page could be redubed Secondary Characters. All links refering to characters would have to be fixed but this is a viable option if anyone has a better Idea or wishes to convince me other wise please do so. Vcelloho 01:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think the article reads just fine as it is, with the small exception of the template. The character sections from the major characters article are both too long and too redundant (with the rest of the article being the way it is) to simple copy and paste. To put them in this article would mean large amounts of editing and size reduction, and since they give you a fine amount of information as it is it would be a shame to simply shave it away. The characters all have basic outlines in the Plot section as it is, and that, to me, is enough. Although, I do think that a more streamlined way of reaching the character articles could and should be found. JimmyBlackwing 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind my previous response. As it was suggesting in peer review that the section be created again, I think your idea would work out the best. I think we should include more characters than just Piro, Largo, Kimiko and Erika, though - maybe branching out into Miho, Ping and Yuki, although not necessarily. Trimming down the information to deal with its redundancy with the rest of the article will, in turn, shorten them into reasonable sizes so that they don't overwhelm everything else. The current pictures used for them will need a bit of fair use description, as well. If no one else disagrees with this then I'll just go ahead and start working on it. JimmyBlackwing 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it Vcelloho 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where should character links go to? Should they go to their internal listings on the Megatokyo page or should they go to the articles outside of the primary page? Vcelloho 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
The 4chan imageboard has recently been having a lot of problems with fred and MT in general. In fact, the recent vandalism to this article is entirely the fault of 4chan regulars. You can verify this by viewing 4chan's /b/ (random) board. 69.145.36.133 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As a 4chan goer, I must elaborate. The vandalism happened because he vehemently denies drawing images dubbed as "loli" by 4chan. Also because he's trying to pass off the harassment as something that is happening for no reason whatsoever, just "a bounch of people with time to kill." There are a number of other things, but those are the main ones at hand currently. Luca Shoal 7:12 PM, June 8 2006 (EST).


 * to elaborate on my claim, I present his side of the story http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=866 4chan isn't as reliable, but look around for about 10 minutes for any threads mentioning "fred-chan" and "weeaboo."

Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo needs work
In order to get Megatokyo to FA status Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo this page definantly needs some work. users may want to look over the character pages to improve them so that the support articles surrounding Megatokyo are sound. Vcelloho 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did alot on Piro's characters. -- Psi edit 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone Suggested a Merge
Someone sugessted a merge in the characters section which I am personally against. I left a note here to let users know as the character talk pages are used fairly infrequently. Vcelloho 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

tagging
I hope someone doesn't see my fact tagging as excessive in Piro - I'm just giving an example of what I think needs referenced. Let me know what you think... Yet another lame sig I came up with T 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from with your tagging, but I disagree. Although Megatokyo is a webcomic, and therefore many more statements are citable than with, say, an article on a book, it is still a "comic." As a comic, shouldn't it follow the standards set forth by other comic-related articles that have been featured (for example, Krazy Kat, The Adventures of TinTin and Calvin and Hobbes)? All three of these contain characters sections which detail the characters' traits and personalities, but they have very little to no citation about those subjects. And for what it's worth, featured articles on books do not cite every little source of information about the plot, nor characters. An example of a featured article on a book, containing a characters section with no citation of its statements, would be Starship Troopers.


 * As I said, though - I understand where you're coming from in that it is possible to cite more statements, due to Megatokyo's webcomic nature. I do not agree with it on the grounds that it is absolutely not standard procedure in featured articles (and articles in general, for that matter), and that it is an impractical choice that could quite probably lead to an article like this one, where there are arguably more citations than actual content. JimmyBlackwing 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I essentially agree, and will take the tags off if there are no objections...? Nifboy 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, Jimmy- if only every article could be so thoroughly sourced and verified! --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of sic
The need to transcript excerpts literally is excusable when we are dealing with sentences that may sound odd but are indeed intended to be that way, like when one says something that contradicts another thing said earlier for example.

To take a certain passage and not correct the eventual misspellings or grammatical errors, placing sic instead, is considered rude in jornalistic practice. It is something only used when there's a clear intention to attack and embarrass the original messenger. I don't believe that is the case here, so I am editing the part where Rodney said "than" instead of "then".RPin 22:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to change the words to their actual meaning then you have you put brackets around the change. Ex: "Easier said then done." ? "Easier said [than] done." --SeizureDog 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Megatokyo vs. megatokyo vs. MegaTokyo
I'm confused, the cover obviously shows it being all lower-case, but the capitalized version is obviously how people tend to refer to it. But then again, the double cap is used in the websites namespace. Exactly what is the "official" version? --SeizureDog 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that it seems to be refered to uncapped in the news postings. --SeizureDog 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Book 3 consistently capitalizes it "Megatokyo" in the dedication and Piro's rants. Nifboy 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * officially, the trademark on megatokyo does not specify case. megatokyo (all lower case) and Megatokyo (capitalized only once) are the ones most often used 'officially'. Personally, Megatokyo would be the correct proper noun usage, if you ask me. the all lower case version tends to be the author's use of lowercase as an affectation of humility. Cortana 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * after a discussion with the author today, Megatokyo is the preferred usage in most cases. Please use this form.Cortana 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. Just wanted to clear that up since the usage is pretty inconsistent. --SeizureDog 10:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)