Talk:Megatokyo/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Dom and Ed appear to be missing

Is it just me, or are the character entries for Dom and Ed completely missing? They don't seem to be on either this page or the minor characters page. I'm pretty sure they used to exist (there's mention of them being moved here from the minor characters page in April), and no-one seems to have discussed moving or deleting them.

The entries are here (Major Characters). But why do we have the major characters listed here when they have a page of their own. -- Psi edit 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination?

It appears to me that the complaints made in the most recent peer review have been addressed. The article itself looks to be in good enough shape to make it to FA status. If others believe as I do, then the article should attempt another FA nomination. JimmyBlackwing 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Warnings Attached to the Fred Gallagher Article and the Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo Article need to be fixed first to improve the support strucutre of this article. The Megatokyo Article itself is great I've had difficulty finding changes to make. Vcelloho 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fred Gallagher and Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo articles have been cleaned up substantially, and the templates, rendered unnecessary, have been removed. JimmyBlackwing 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing left is one citation on the Fred Gallagher page. I'm looking for it but it is more difficult to find then I thought it would be. I'll fix it as soon as I find it --Vcelloho 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I cited a few sources in Fred Gallagher, so that's taken care of.Hargle 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts before a FAC:
    • The origins of the names "Piro" and "Largo" need to be cited;
    • Som:e of the paragraphs in the Character section are shortish and could perhaps be combined;
    • The numerous scare quotes in "Plot" are grating;
    • "Chapters" does not really belong with "Plot and recurring themes," so it could either be worked into "Books" or probably cut at no real loss to the article;
    • The very name "Plot and recurrent themes" seems a little verbose and slightly wrong: perhaps "Plot and themes?" "Synopsis" might be better still;
    • Citations for paragraphs three and four of "Plot" would be nice, and would insulate that section from citation concerns (check out Excel Saga's FAC).
    • A little too much attention seems to be given to Miho relative to Piro and Largo;
    • You should probably cite or cut fan-speculation about Miho (and in general);
    • The minor characters are an integral part of Megatokyo: Dom, Seraphim, Boo, Ping all warrant some mention;
    • It might be easier to rename "Main characters" "Characters," remove the headings from the main characters, and add a bulletted list of minor characters, or some such.
Good luck!--Monocrat 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The first, second, third, seventh and eighth issues have been taken care of. However, I am slightly skeptical of the others. Particularly the suggestion regarding the use of citations in the third and fourth paragraphs of Plot and recurrent themes. The problem is that many, if not all, of the statements made are not citable by their very nature.
For example, the fourth paragraph states the following:

The comic features aspects from a number of different anime and manga archetypes, usually making light of the genres' various clichés: Junpei, a ninja who takes on Largo as his "l33t master;" giant saurians (such as "Rent-A-Zilla") roaming the streets; the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division," which fights the monsters with giant robots and oversees the orderly and periodic destruction and reconstruction of predesignated areas of the city; Ping, a cute robot girl who becomes friends with Piro; and a school girl, Sonoda Yuki, who possibly is in love with Piro and has started taking art lessons from him. Dom and Ed (based on Dominic Nguyen and Edmund Balan, real-life friends of Gallagher and Caston), hitman-like employees of Sega and Sony, respectively, play characters associated with the Japanese stereotype that all Americans are armed to the teeth. Hayasaka Erika is a former idol, singer and voice actress (currently employed alongside Piro at Megagamers), while her shy, soft-spoken roommate, Nanasawa Kimiko, is aspiring to the same career (although she is currently employed at an Anna Miller's restaurant). Seraphim and Boo, Piro's and Largo's "conscience enforcement agents," respectively, try to help their clients make the morally correct decisions, while Asmodeus, Piro's "anti-conscience," attempts to undo their help. One of the more mysterious characters is Tohya Miho; she befriends Ping and seems to enjoy psychologically toying with others.

These are elements of the plot - not citable happenings. The only way they could possibly be cited is by multiple, perhaps even up to 5, citations on each statement to portray the fact that the elements are in constant use. The most logical citation would be "read the work itself," which isn't much of a citation at all. I can understand the possible citation of the friendship between Dominic Nquyen, Edmund Balan, Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, however, and will attempt to cite that quickly.
I would understand if this was commonly practiced, or even normally seen in featured articles. However, with such featured articles as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which contains not even a single citation of its long plot description) and The Giver (in a state similar to that of Hitchhiker's Guide), I cannot see the reasoning as to why Megatokyo requires citations of its plot. Further, I must also question the citation of paragraph three, under largely the same reasoning:

Megatokyo's pace and style indirectly correspond to the history of the comic itself. Much of the early humor consists of video game culture jokes, as well as culture-clash issues. During this early phase, the story moved along at a haphazard pace and was often interrupted by pure gag episodes and "dead piro" filler-art days. This has changed somewhat, however, with the greatest changes occurring after Gallagher completely took over Megatokyo - most prominently: slower pacing, increased detail of character personalities and a larger focus on romances between characters. "Dead piro" days still occasionally appear as omake when Gallagher is unable to produce a strip, as do "Shirt Guy Dom" gag strips, in fewer cases.

Most, if not all, of this deals with elements of the plot which are not citable. If it were, for example, to mention the occurrence of a singular event, it would be possible to cite it without the use of 3 or more citations (although it is still not commonly practiced). Unfortunately, it does not. The only element I can see the possibility of citing is the continued existence of the "dead piro" and "Shirt Guy Dom" strips, which will again require numerous citations - in addition to the need for said citations to be updated frequently, to keep in sync with their presence in the latest happens of Megatokyo. I would opt for a total removal of the aforementioned sentence over its citation, due to the needless complexities it would cause.
If any sort of citation is to be made, I would lean towards the renaming of the "References" section to "Notes" and including a new section titled "References" which lists the Megatokyo series - a practice seen in current featured articles on literature.
I might also add, in reference to your other suggestions, that the minor characters of Megatokyo are noted in the Plot and recurrent themes section, with detailed summaries available in the articles linked by template:megatokyo, which is located directly below the Main characters section. As for the Chapters section, I disagree with both moving it to Books or removing it entirely. It details that each chapter following the first one takes place in a single day, the time chapter 0 covers, the beginning and endings of chapters (information not easily found elsewhere) and the fact that chapter 0 was not named until the print version of Megatokyo was released. My reasoning for disagreeing with its movement to books is simpler: the books released only cover up to the end of chapter 6, making it factually inaccurate to list chapters 7 and 8 in the section.
Still, thank you for the suggestions and I will finish the changes besides those I disagree with (unless there is some element unknown to me which makes my entire argument invalid, in which case I will make all of your suggested changes). JimmyBlackwing 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see the minor characters in "Plot..." Beyond that, I truly sympathize with your stance on citing plot elements, and I have argued the point about recent FAs not having them (see that link I gave you). Just be aware that I got an "oppose" from one editor (and one seemingly concurrent comment) for not having those citations. The "SGD" and "DPD" are important aspects of the franchise, methinks, so you can probably skirt citation. However, comments about the "haphazard" pacing of the story, "pure gag episodes," and Gallagher's changes are not plot elements per se but analysis of the plot, however light. Other FAs have gotten away with that, and it might not warrant an opposition now, but standards change. Since you now have those character articles, following summary style it might make sense (and this is a radical step) to combine "Plot" and "Main characters." (I was against this this when an editor made first proposed it to me for a different article, but I experimented in Wordpad and liked what I had.) Regarding the chapters: People at FAC seem to dislike needless lists, and at this moment the chapter list adds nothing expect the issue numbers; all of the relevant information it conveys is in the prose at the beginning of that subsection. As it stands, that prose could go in the lead, with the list cut without loss. Now, if you were to have chapter summaries, even of just a few lines, that would be different. But even then, you could probably work all of that into a unified Plot summary and still get rid of the list. Put another way, I've never seen a FA with a list of chapters. These are all just friendly advice: I'd like to see this get FA, but as it stands, I think it's got a ways to go.--Monocrat 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Earlier modifications to the character section were recomended I disagree with these changes since The characters section is in very good condition also it was decided not to use a bulleted list of characters in this article.--Vcelloho 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Monocrat, I see where you're coming from. While I also disagree with the merging of Main characters into plot (as it was suggested in peer review that a characters section be made), I will work to cite the things you mentioned, and edit the Chapters section into something more serviceable. Thank you for the suggestions. JimmyBlackwing 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Prose

There's a bit in the 'Reception' section where each paragraph begins with a single word followed by a comma--"professionally," "artistically," "originally," "arguably." Just a tiny nitpick; it's a little jarring if you're only skimming. --Masamage 01:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it ready?

The rate of contributions have slowed down and I can't find anything to change are we ready for FA submision. Vcelloho 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


The last couple of things that bothered me were recently taken care of, I think it's ready. Hargle 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As even Excel Saga made it to featured status without citing any real source for its plot, I fail to see how Megatokyo should be any different. With that said, I have recently taken care of the last few things that I found even slight fault with. I would have to say that the article is ready to be nominated. JimmyBlackwing 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excel Saga couldn't external-link to each plot point either. --maru (talk) contribs 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Excel does cite an episode guide published by Newtype USA (see footnote 12). Seems real enough to me. ;) Discussion over at the FAC talk page seems ambiguous on the necessity of plot citations, but I read it to say that they're not really needed. Anyway, I don't think this article is ready yet. I think the article has improved greatly over the past weeks, but I think it has issues with the prose (e.g., the sentence about Dom and Ed in "Plot" is a real pain, and the copy generally could use some sprucing up). Moreover, I'm still unsure about the wisdom of separating plot and character discussions in a character-driven story (especially as so little has really happened in MT that can be described as plot per se as opposed to character development). As it stands now, the distinction is poorly made: there are plot-ish elements in "Characters" and character descriptions in "Plot." As far as "Reception," it seems a little thin, but that could just be me. You've got a NYT article with untapped flattering material: Fred's explanation of obscure things like cosplay and LEET, and how he "offers a unique kind of intimacy with the work, a sense of being part of its creation in some way." I know Fred posts links to reviews and news about MT on the "rant" section, so perhaps you could trawl those for more references. On the subject of the "rants," Fred gives them titles, so I would personally use his titles for them in the citations, giving some explanatory material at the end of the note.--Monocrat 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies - I missed your citation, there. In any case, Megatokyo has no notable "plot guide," so it's a good thing it is not needed. I'll get to work on the other things you mentioned. Thanks for the suggestions. JimmyBlackwing 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe your complaints have been taken care of, Monocrat. JimmyBlackwing 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no more objections, and I cannot find any flaws large enough to prevent the article from passing FAC, perhaps it is finally time to nominate it...? JimmyBlackwing 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do, do it during a week where you have enough free time to fix the article in response to objections; FAC is by far the best place to get feedback for "almost there" articles, and fixing problems during the FAC is the best way to get featured. Nifboy 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Nifboy: you'll want free time. :) Good luck! (Sorry for the delay: I've been on wikibreak for a while.)--Monocrat 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. --L33tminion (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Miho as Perkigoth

I know Fred has said this, but it's currently got a citation-needed sticker on it and I'm having a hard time locating it. The best I can find is the thread where he talks about the girl who inspired Miho's look[1]--can anyone help? --Masamage 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I googled both Fredart and Megatokyo for "perky," "perki," "perky goth," "perki goth," "perkygoth," perkigoth" and just "goth," (ignoring results from the forums) and came up with nothing relevant. Hargle 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did exactly the same thing. Problem is I've been an MT fan for some five years, so it's pretty much impossible to remember where I read that. An interview, maybe? Anyway, I'll change the phrasing to make it match that link and put the reference in. --Masamage 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I remember in Megatokyo Vol. 1 (the first Darkhorse volume), there are several references to the character-who-would-be-named-Miho as "Perkigoth" (or "Perkygoth"; it's sometimes hard to make out the exact lettering in the sketches) ex. the sketch on pg 154, or the comments on pg 90 ("Perkigoth? Queen of the undead? Or just a girl who likes to mess with Largo's hair?"), FWIW. --maru (talk) contribs 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, good job! There it is! :D I'll use the sketch as a reference. Way to go. --Masamage 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:) Aww, stop it, you'll make me blush. It's simply lucky that I borrowed it from the library and had happened to see this section before I read it, is all. --maru (talk) contribs 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Last Item on To Do List

From the to do list:

  • Add more info about changes since Rodney Caston left to history section

What were those changes? The comic continued to move away from an episodic "gag-a-day" style towards a more complex story, but that process was already underway when the split happened (indeed, that was the main cause of the split). --L33tminion | (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was my comment in peer review, so I may as well address it: At the time I made that comment, I didn't really think of the books/merch as "history", and found it rather odd that the only post-Caston event in that section was of Fred losing his job. It doesn't seem to apply anymore (particularly with the "funding" section), so I'm striking it out. Nifboy 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'm going to submit this to FAC again. It looks ready. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yuki?

I just realized that the character Yuki is nowhere to be found! Not on the main article, and not in the minor characters list! O_o

She's probably a main character... So edit carefully, bad writing could lose us the nomination! --Masamage 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack. Nevermind, I just discovered that Main Characters article. >__>; --Masamage 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts

To alleviate pressure on the FAC:

  1. By "reformulating the discussion on L33t..." I meant that it would be nice to have a broader idea in the lead of what cultural phenomena MT references. He mentions from time to time (perhaps in notes in the published volumes) that he draws from this or that manga or anime or what-have-you, so there's some material to work with. Perhaps I just haven't read it carefully enough. I noticed that the lead has changed quite a bit.
  2. I'm uneasy about discussing how the art has changed, unless you can get citations for it. Gallagher talks about his growth as an artist occasionally in his rants, so that's perhaps a better place to start than using the covers. The problem with using the book covers to establish changes in the art style is that it verges on OR. Citations are much better. (On a side note, and as a neutral comment, I would prefer the first edition cover in the infobox. It's a brighter, more engaging image. But that's me.)
  3. As for my other points: I belive most of the initial ones have been addressed. It is my strong hope that you will reconsider having separate plot and character sections, but the call is yours. However, the article still fails criterion 2a, just in terms of the stylistic quality of the writing. Even if you reject the idea of a consolidated Synopsis, you need to somehow address reptitive details, wordiness, long and awkward sentences. (For instance, see the sentence about Kimiko's rise to idol status, and the bit about the Tokyo Police Cataclysim Division. They grate on me.) I would offer to help with a copy-edit, but 1) I don't have the time now, 2) the temptation to merge would be too great *wink*, and 3) I suspect I've worn my welcome here thin.--Monocrat 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Kimiko and TPCD sentences: is that better? Also, got any more? ^^ --Masamage 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Issue #2 has been addressed, I believe. I also took a shot at issue #1 - is that something along the lines of what you were looking for? #3 will be resolved soon, I hope, though I will continue in my attempts to remove crufty detail in the Main characters section. JimmyBlackwing 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a side-by-side comparison of an older Kimiko drawing and a redone version in, I think, book 1. That would be a fab scan. Nifboy 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right! There are three drawings, in fact. My only misgiving about that idea is that the special material for the books is the only stuff that isn't available online, which makes it seem to break the "no free alternative" rule a lot more than most things do. --Masamage 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're that concerned about it, we can pull just the "early" image from "strip" 118 and pull the commentary from the book. I do still think adding the redone version would be ideal. Nifboy 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Masamage: the Kimiko sentence is better. I'm not sure what changed in the TPCD bit, but it still doesn't seem quite right. That whole paragraph strikes me as being a little awkward. Perhaps you could lift text from my proposed Synopsis, or at least use it to see what I did different? For the reasons above, I can't spare time for a thorough copy edit. Know any Wikipedians with l33t editing skillz?--Monocrat 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it used to be all one sentence: "Largo's work includes service with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he teaches his students about L33t, games, and hacking."
I changed it to become: "Largo's work includes teaching English at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he instructs his students in L33t, video games, and hacking. He also enjoys a brief stint as a member of the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division." Is it the GTO explanation? 'Cause that does feel a bit awkward. I guess I can try again in a little while; I'll make a note here when I do. --Masamage 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I made an attempt to tighten up the prose in question a little. Is that better? Note: with only one day left on the nomination (I believe), it would be great to know exactly what problems remain that keep you from supporting the article, Monocrat, so they may be fixed before it is too late. JimmyBlackwing 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy, a brief glance suggests the prose still has issues, although it's better. The FAC will likely attract Tony1's attention, and I suspect you'll get a bit of input from him. I can't go through the whole thing due to work. If the prose improves enough, I'll probably strike my objection, but I don't think I'll be able to support it. I'm troubled too much by 1) the use of 100% of an independently copyrighted work (i.e., the strip: although this one works better than the previous one, commentary is still thin at best); and 2) as always, the separate plot and character sections. --Monocrat 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well. However, this game of "is it better now?" is beginning to wear on me. A better method would be, when you deem the quality of the prose appropriate, to simply strike out your objection on the Megatokyo FAC page. Until then, we will continue work on the prose, and hopefully bring it up to your standards. JimmyBlackwing 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy, I assure you it's wearing on me, as well. I'm only doing two things here: 1) responding to questions by you, Masamage, and L33tminion, and 2) trying to see the article improved. I'm sorry if I've been too harsh on you. You have all done a very good job with the article, and my own issues with it notwithstanding, I hope it gets promoted.--Monocrat 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming order

Guys, don't mess with the naming order here - MOS:JA doesn't apply, because:

  • Megatokyo is an American-made work of fiction
  • All versions of the actual Megatokyo comic use Japanese order (there is a beginning extra, a "Dead Piro Day" picture, that uses Western order - but the actual comic uses Japanese order)
  • MOS-JA does not govern fictional character naming order - only naming orders of people

WhisperToMe 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious! A great many other articles use Western order--I looked up every anime I've seen and they were all written this way. The fact that it was made in America would seem to make it more likely that we should use Western order. The Japan-guidelines don't actually say anything about how to list fictional characters' names, so I think it's inappropriate to use that as evidence in either direction. --Masamage 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But this is Megatokyo. "The Japan-guidelines don't actually say anything about how to list fictional characters' names, so I think it's inappropriate to use that as evidence in either direction." - That was precisely why the name order was switched around in the first place - I say that is why the order should not be switched around. Anyway, the reason why many Japanese anime and manga series have name switcheroos is because the English-language publishers switch the names around. Megatokyo is a different animal. WhisperToMe 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pro-writing-to-a-general-audience here; names should be in Western order, almost regardless of any other consideration, because that is the order with which English readers are most familiar. Also, it's what WP:ANIME suggests ("Characters' names should be given in western order."), even if it's technically not in its scope. Nifboy 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...both views makes sense. But this is definately more like anime/manga than it is like an American comic book. I didn't even know about that WP group, but since it exists, I have to say I think we should go with it. --Masamage 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"I am pro-writing-to-a-general-audience here" - It's not that difficult to explain the naming order. Switching the naming order, in a Megatokyo context, is getting it all wrong. It's very easy to say "In Megatokyo, Japanese names are written in this order" - I do not like the said order. But I know that if I switch the order, I am outright lying to people. " Also, it's what WP:ANIME suggests ("Characters' names should be given in western order.")" - WP:Anime is not policy. And it doesn't apply to Megatokyo; this is an American work. Also, to Masamage - "But this is definately more like anime/manga than it is like an American comic book." - But this isn't written by a Japanese author. The style doesn't matter - in fact, the statement isn't necessairly true because the comic originated in a more American format (four panel comic) and later switched to a more Japanese format. WhisperToMe 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, we understand that's your opinion. But since the rest of us have opinions too, this needs to be a much more two-way conversation. Which it doesn't feel like, to me. If I give in to you, it'll be because I'm tired of getting preached to, not because I agree. Which is pretty lame. --Masamage 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not like that "that's your opinion" phrase - Obviously it's my opinion. Maddox ranted about the phrase in his website: see http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood - Yes, it's Maddox's post, but I agree with him. Besides, on Wikipedia, this is a matter of right and wrong. It is wrong, in a Megatokyo context, to westernize the names. Also, part of that post was intended for another user. The part addressed to you started with your name. WhisperToMe 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I pressed one of your buttons; I didn't know it was there, and certainly wouldn't have made your blood boil on purpose. My statement was not meant to belittle your point, and I'm sorry that it seemed to. I only meant to show the perspective I was coming from. I respond to official guidelines immediately and as closely as I can; I respond to opinions by listening, and then expressing my own, and trying to have a conversation. But since you continue to insist that you are right and we are wrong, it's not a dicussion of opinion, and I'm consistantly on the defensive. It's frustrating, and it's a ridiculous way to approach the concept of consensus. We'll never succeed. --Masamage 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Be civil, please. Masamage was asking for additional input to help form a concensus. Wikipedia is also certainly not about "right and wrong". --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As much as I disagree with the idea of Americanizing Japanese names, I think they should use Western order just because it's easier on the reader. It's a waste of their time to link them away to some article explaining the difference in naming orders, or even inserting some sort of description, which, as demonstrated by the last time, kills the flow of the article. There is no reason to start an edit war on this, particularly during FAC. JimmyBlackwing 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What about Chinese names? Korean names? Are we going to start Westernizing them just because? Don't get me wrong. I do support Westernizing Japanese names for the most part because other people do that too (in most Japanese fictional series, in news sources, etc) - But this article is an exception. "kills the flow of the article" isn't sufficient. We have footnotes. Those don't kill the flow of the article. WhisperToMe 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Japanese names aren't put in western order "just because" -- they're put in wester order because that's the way the Monbusho decided that Japanese people should format names back in the Meiji era. People in Japan with nationalist tendencies, don't like that formatting, but it's the one primarily used in scholarly works that mention Japanese subjects. (That's why we have the Meiji-era demarkation for naming Japanese people in the wikipedia.) We don't use those for Chinese and Koraen names on the wikipedia don't use those formattings because it wasn't the naming standard of the government that set language usage for ~150 years. --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"MT is not a Japanese work; it is proudly an American fan work, and (I suspect) embraces Japanese conventions out of appreciation for the culture. In a small way, it contributes to us experiencing the foreign immersion that Piro and Largo are currently experiencing. " WhisperToMe 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

        • That has no bearing on Wikipedia, and neither does the Maddox rant you linked to. The most important thing here is to make it easily approachable by someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. If you can find a way to make it easy for the readers (the use of an inline citation above the characters section is confusing and unsightly, and the text it links to does a poor job of explaining this), then by all means do so. Thus far, none of the solutions you have provided for this have managed that. You may be in the right here, but being right does not mean you have the right to disrupt the readers' experience. JimmyBlackwing 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
          • "but being right does not mean you have the right to disrupt the readers' experience." Answer this question: What about Chinese names? Korean names? Are we going to start Westernizing them just because? - And, yes, all of this is relevant; Are we going to say "Zedong Mao" just to not "disrupt the readers' experience?" - I am well aware what the audience is - This is a specific work of fiction under a specific set of circumstances. Again, I want Megatokyo to use Western order, but, at the same time, the Japanese naming order is used in the comic and it will stay that way. WhisperToMe 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I agree that the names should remain in Japanese order. However, to simplify what I said before:
The explanation you put in the article of exactly why the characters' names are in Japanese order is confusing at best, in both prose and presentation. If putting the names in Japanese order is correct, great, but let the readers know in a way that does not make them say, "Huh?".
            • Bottom line: find a way to do it that is as seamless as simply putting them in Western order, instead of just letting any reader who comes into the article be confused while you argue your point on the talk page. JimmyBlackwing 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"The explanation you put in the article of exactly why the characters' names are in Japanese order is confusing at best, in both prose and presentation. If putting the names in Japanese order is correct, great, but let the readers know in a way that does not make them say, "Huh?"."

How I am doing it right now is having a footnote from the top of the "characters section" - As well as have a note about it in the Main characters and minor characters articles at the top of the said pages. Also, I am using the words "family name" and "given name" to reduce confusion. WhisperToMe 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's still unnecessarily confusing. Why does a reader need to be confused just because there's a small debate over which one is correct? The current version of your changes are neither substantial nor cohesive enough to adequately replace simply Westernizing the characters' names - regardless of whether it's correct or not, it isn't worth the price of confusing the readers.
  • I must make mention of the fact that that you are using your own, personal Wikiphilosophy as an arguing tool. Sure, the guidelines in question don't make any specific mention of this situation, but that doesn't make your view of what course of action to take here any more correct. In fact, you are possibly the one more in the wrong here, as you have jeopardized the stability of the article by pushing your own Wikiphilosophy through minor edit warring. I am assuming good faith, here, make no question of that, but your course of action has been disruptive to say the least, regardless of the motivation behind it.
  • There is currently a comment on the article's FAC page about this debate, and I fear it getting out of hand could be the final nail in the coffin of this article's FAC discussion, per criterion 2e of the featured article criteria. That said, I'm going to make you an offer in order to end this as soon as possible: if you can find a way to justify the possible confusion of the readers (through something more than your personal views on the subject), and improve your system enough that it will cause as little confusion as possible, then the names stay in Japanese order. If you can't manage that, then they're going back to Western order, and I do hope you won't turn this into a full-scale edit war because of it. JimmyBlackwing 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "That said, I'm going to make you an offer in order to end this as soon as possible: if you can find a way to justify the possible confusion of the readers (through something more than your personal views on the subject), and improve your system enough that it will cause as little confusion as possible" - Then you tell me what you think is better than my solution, because footnotes are already the acceptable way to do this (See Saddam Hussein) WhisperToMe 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are that concerned with it ruining the FAC, just let the issue go and let the Japanese naming order appear in the article. I will say this right now: I will not budge. Why should an article be FACed if it has a fatal factual inaccuracy? It has to reflect the Japanese order - Putting the character names in Western order and then making a footnote that states that the actual comic uses Japanese order is contradictory and self-defeating. WhisperToMe 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I made some edits, and I think the current version is clear, non-confusing, and not misleading. Note that the transliterations of the Japanese spellings of names are in Japanese order, while the other instances of those names are in standard English order. Also note the footnote after Erika's name. Finally, someone should add the Japanese spelling of Miho's name to the article (if it is known). --L33tminion (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Miho's name kanji/kana is totally unknown. It's been a point of speculation on the forums for years. ^_^ --Masamage 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "I made some edits, and I think the current version is clear, non-confusing, and not misleading. " - That is misleading, because the actual comic uses Japanese order! (I am repeating the same point over and over because I feel like it is not understood by some at the moment) - If the actual comic uses a naming order that potentially confuse readers, why can't this article? And this article has a footnote. This already fulfills JimmyBlackwing's request (we use footnotes in other articles - Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, etc) - WhisperToMe 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Everyone understands you perfectly. The sooner you get that, the better. Good grief. --Masamage 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • In that case, the only thing left to discuss is not what the naming order should be, but what is the best way to organize the information used to inform people about the naming convention. From what I can tell, Japanese naming order is going to stay, but I need to come up with a better way to footnote it. WhisperToMe 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not true, because I understand and still disagree with you. I also feel extremely talked-down-to. I feel like you think we're the bad guy, and like we wanted to hurt our readers and you personally by evilly putting names in a certain order. What an insignificant detail to get so angry about. You've actually threatened to make the nomination fail if you don't get your way, which just blows my mind. I'm so appalled that I don't have any idea how to address your statements anymore. --Masamage 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
              • In the world of an encyclopedia, there is no such thing as an "insignificant detail" - If it was that insignificant, there wouldn't be a debate over it, would it? - If this is going to be an FA, it has to be darned close to perfect; that's why I am threatening the nomination - I understand it is hard to get a perfect article. I understand you worked hard on this article. The problem, is that the article *must* be perfect; deliberately using a different naming order makes the article worse - Why bother using a different naming order to clear up the confusion when the comic uses the Japanese naming order itself? Masamage, please don't take my attitude personally. I have the attitude because I take Wikipedia seriously. That means rejecting the "that's your opinion" idea. When you are in a hot debate, the "that's your opinion" is a sign of weakness. I do not wish to convey that. If this was a casual AIM chat about personal preferences, "that's your opinion," while it shouldn't be said, is the best way to think about it. But when this is a Wikipedia dispute, "that's your opinion" is fatal. WhisperToMe 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Propose solution

Jimmy Blackwing - Remember my last edit before L33t minion replaced the naming order? Why not have that, but, if needed, bold the note that Japanese names in Megatokyo are in the traditional order - We can also add a "See Japanese name" to show the controversy - People will see the footnotes, know something is up, and follow the rabbit holes :) WhisperToMe 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree, as the version you are proposing was actually the one causing confusion in the first place. This is getting way out of hand, particularly with your comment about objecting to the nomination purely due to your personal view of this issue. I have submitted it for discussion on the FAC discussion page. JimmyBlackwing 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I say there is no real confusion if the reader finds the footnote and reads it. "particularly with your comment about objecting to the nomination purely due to your personal view of this issue." - Don't call it a "personal point of view" - I say that, if it a featured article, it must be very darned close to perfect. Here's my statement: Why bother switching around the naming order to "prevent confusion" when the reader reads the darned comic, he or she will see the alternate naming order and ask "Well, why did Wikipedia do that?" WhisperToMe 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, my proposed solution was not causing any confusion - From what I can tell, JimmyBlackwing, you fear that it will cause confusion. Those are two different things. WhisperToMe 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • By the way, it is completely okay to "threaten" (In a sense of, vote against) the FAC because the issue is not properly addressed. I do NOT mean removing FAC links or stuff like that, just to be clear. WhisperToMe 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It is your personal interpretation of what should be done about the issue in order to bring the article "close to perfection." There are no policies relating to it, and this has dissolved into an argument of separate Wikiphilosophies. With that in mind, I do not agree that it is "completely okay" to object to a nomination simply because it goes against your personal opinion. Also, the majority of people who read this article will not ever read Megatokyo. If they did, then this would be an advertisement. As such, the naming order should make sense for readers of the article - not readers of Megatokyo. I find the current version to be the perfect example of the article making sense to readers, but yet being comprehensive by covering the fact that Megatokyo's names are in Japanese order. Regardless, we shall see what the result of the discussion on the FAC talk page is. JimmyBlackwing 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • "Also, the majority of people who read this article will not ever read Megatokyo. If they did, then this would be an advertisement" - Not necessairly - Keep in mind that many people who regularly read Megatokyo may edit the article. As per the forum post, many of the people who read Megatokyo already know about Japanese naming conventions, and would not be confused about the way names are ordered in Megatokyo itself. WhisperToMe 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
              • You are talking about a minority. A very, very small minority. Articles are written for non-specialists - in other words, the majority. The vast majority of the people who stumble across this article will never read Megatokyo - a simple glance at Wikipedia's traffic ranking at Alexa will tell you this. JimmyBlackwing 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I have moved the discussion which was originally located on the FAC talk page to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). JimmyBlackwing 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
                • But what are the ratings for the Megatokyo page on Wikipedia itself? Wikipedia covers a lot more than Megatokyo, so not all of the traffic will read the Megatokyo article. WhisperToMe 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

End of debate

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Naming order in relation to works of Western origin. The name order for Megatokyo characters of Japanese origin stays in the Surname—Given name order. Hereafter, their names should not be modified from this form. JimmyBlackwing 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link is wrong, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Naming order in relation to works of Western origin. You seem to imply that the discussion is over, please don't make such misleading comments. It is pretty clear that this is not the consensus. A lot of editors don't like being forced to change the naming order from how the original has it, and somehow some think this article is excused because it's not Japanese. How does that make any sense at all? If someone had a rule, such as "no wearing shoes on the clean floor" and posted it in Room A, Room A then follows that rule. Room B comes along and wears their shoes on the floor, because they said "well, they only put the note in on Room A, and we're Room B." That's just childish, man. -- Ned Scott 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
When I linked to it, no debate had started, nor did I expect one to. JimmyBlackwing 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Conversation formatting

This conversation is very hard to decipher. The formatting seem to be broken in several places. Can someone who knows who was talking to who, correct it? --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of cover images

At 13:20, User:CyberSkull replaced the manga cover images that were removed per FAC consensus with an edit summary of merely "book covers;" I waited a reasonable amount of time for him to provide a reason for this change, but now an hour has passed with no word on either the talk page or the FAC page. As such, I have reverted the edit pending further explanation of why the images were replaced. Hargle 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate vs. Merged Plot and Character Sections

Monocrat suggests merging the "Plot" and "Character" sections into one synopsis section, and has drawn up a draft of such a merge here. I greatly appreciate Monocrat's work on this issue. However, I think that having separate character and plot sections makes the article less confusing and makes it easier for readers to find specific information. It also makes it easier for readers who are trying to avoid spoilers to do so. Thus, I'd like to find out what the rest of you think on the subject. Thus, I'm setting up a quick straw poll on the issue. Please share your opinions (and preferably the reasoning behind your opinions as well). --L33tminion (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge the Sections

  • Monocrat 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Sigh. Here goes: As I've pointed out before, much of the current Main Characters section is fluff that repeats or only lightly expands on details provided in Plot. Furthermore, with as little as there really is to say about the characters (it's not like there's much in-depth analysis), the distinction between plot and characters in a character-driven story seems rather forced. It's not even maintained in the article, as all the minor characters are discussed (fairly well and succinctly) in the "Themes..." Why is what's good for minor characters not good for main characters? I don't follow arguments about convenience: do you mean to say that repetition and forced distinctions are convenient? If you know what you're looking for, perhaps. If you're new to the topic, I doubt it. (Why must a hypothetical new reader in three instances read that Piro and Largo are based on the creators? Once in Plot, and once each in Piro and Largo.) Proper headings and organization can solve that problem. Regarding spoilers, is it better to have one section under spoiler warning or two? Anyway... Eyesores are in the eyes of the beholder. ;) I personally find short sections visually offensive, and that paragraphs and sections of decent size allow for elegant and developed writing. Again, proper organization and headings can resolve most of that concern. And the character images **are** irrelevant: they will not appear in any mirror or derivative of Wikipedia, nor do I think they add much at all. Most images on WP I think are just eye candy. :) The only image in the article I think even close to necessary is the first volume's first cover (with sincerity: thank you thank you thank you!). It shows the protagonists, the style, and the branding. Anyway. So my proposed Synopsis didn't take. I didn't expect it to. Still, I ask that someone closer to the material and article try making a unified Synopsis--such closeness might lead to a satisfactory product, and this issue can be revisited. Really, it's almost there: enough single details can be lifted from Main Character into Plot, and we'd be done with this. Back to work for me.
    • Well, it's not like having good-looking articles is a bad thing. That's one of the major benefits to good illustration, it's more enjoyable than when the same information is conveyed with just text. That aside, I've begun serious work on improving the plot section. While I think a little redundancy is worth it for the organizational clarity that separate sections provide, it currently seems more redundant than necessary because the plot section could use more information. --L33tminion (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave them Separate

  • L33tminion (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (clearer (IMO), easier to avoid spoilers if desired, easier to find specific information)
  • JimmyBlackwing 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (in this case, merging would almost definitely cause the loss of necessary and non-trivial detail. As commented on by L33tminion, separate plot and characters section are clearer (in most cases), and make it easier to find specific information. See Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy X-2 or Shadow of the Colossus for articles of featured quality which are only made better by their inclusion of some form of characters section)
  • --Masamage 07:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC) - As I mentioned in the nomination page, very long paragraphs sort of make my eyes glaze over, and I tend to think I'm not alone. People who want to spend a long time on MT will go and read the comic; the rest are here out of curiousity, and they'll want something concise. Short paragraphs with identifying headers are much friendlier and more intuitive to that kind of visitor. --Masamage 07:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hargle 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I prefer it as it is currently, mixing them together results in a murky hodgepodge of information that is clumsy to navigate and makes it difficult to find specific info; and also makes the character images seem less relevant.

Plot Section

I'm working on the plot section now (slowly, as I'm having a really hard time with it (although that will be a little easier once I have some time to sit down with the books)). I don't think the plot summary is nearly complete enough. A few other comments:

  • Largo is also briefly hired by the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division."
    • Why was he hired, and how did he lose that job? (As I recall, the TPCD is now sending ninjas after him...)
  • As the series progresses, Piro and Largo begin shaky relationships with women they meet and grow as individuals, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they first represented.
    • This is way too hand-wavey, even for a summary.
  • Another plot thread includes the character Kimiko Nanasawa's sudden rise to idol status, fueled by her outburst on a radio talk show...
    • This transition is awful. It needs to be more clear how this ties into the rest of the story. How do the protagonists meet Kimiko in the first place, etc.?

--L33tminion (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point. I'll be able to help with this a little later. JimmyBlackwing 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done more work on this. But a few parts still need more detail, especially the following:

  • Later in the series, it is revealed that Erika was herself an idol, but she disappeared from the public eye after an incident involving the death of a fan
  • Miho also mentions that she was a fan of Erika's, or more precisely, a fan of her fans. (the exact quote would be good)

Those bits were written by me, but I'm having a hard time remembering precise plot points or finding the relevant comics. --L33tminion (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, the section should have references that point to specific comics. --L33tminion (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't agree on that references bit. Plot citations are not a requirement, nor do they do anything besides clutter section. Also, the huge amount of redundancy in the plot and characters sections is grating. The problem is, if I cut the last bits out of the characters section, it's probably going to end up with me just merging a few of the character subsections into plot. JimmyBlackwing 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that plot citations aren't a requirement, but I still think they would be a plus. --L33tminion (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite and format change

I find that, though L33tminion's recent revisions of the Plot section were, for the most part, of high quality, the extreme amount of added detail has compromised the necessity of the Main characters section. However, I still heavily disagree with Monocrat's proposed complete merge of the Main characters and Plot sections.

In light of this, I am proposing this change in layout and writing. I believe this is an adequate compromise between the two viewpoints, eliminating the redundancy of the previous system, while at the same time keeping the detailed analysis of the characters. The style of introducing characters and then discussing plot elements is seen in such featured articles as Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X and Chrono Trigger, so I do not believe it is a huge jump in logic to change the layout like this. Apologies to L33tminion, but the change proposes yet another heavy rewrite of the Plot section, largely due to my belief that the current version is far too detailed for a summary.

Thoughts on this? JimmyBlackwing 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: Due to User:Tony1's recent objection to the nomination, wherein he listed "redundancies" as a reason for his opposition, I strongly advise the course of action suggested here. JimmyBlackwing 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm too dazed by everything to respond in general, but I have one comment: please don't mention "blurred". Talk about unnecessary details. Ugh. --Masamage 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, referring to "blurred" as "pornographic" is (at best) misleading. --L33tminion (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I've removed the sentence. Aside from that, are there any objections to this change, before I stick it in the article? JimmyBlackwing 07:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you try to implement this incrementally in the article instead of doing a cut and paste? (I've started on the process, and I don't want all my edits to be blown away.) --L33tminion (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you think of the current version of the Plot section? I think it's been greatly improved, and it would be hard to remove much more detail without leaving out significant plot points or disrupting the prose. --L33tminion (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just made a ton of edits. I merged in some stuff from your proposal, but I probably missed some improvements. --L33tminion (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Still some problems, but they're small and can be taken care of pretty quickly. The Plot section is good now, I think. To me, the biggest issue seems to be the fact that the "Themes[...]," "Plot" and "Main characters" sections are all separate sections, though it may only be me seeing this. JimmyBlackwing 10:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • While I think it makes more organizational sense to have them all be first-level sections, that's a minor point; feel free to include them in a "Synopsis" section if you think that makes more sense. --L33tminion (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge character pages?

Why do Main characters of Megatokyo and Minor characters of Megatokyo merit separate pages? Wouldn't it make sense to merge them to Characters of Megatokyo? Also, the useful changes to the "Main characters" section should be merged to the relevant sections in Main characters of Megatokyo. --L33tminion (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Did the second part, but I'm not going to merge the two pages without some support from other editors. --L33tminion (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The "master page" system was used awhile back, but it proved to be counterintuitive, and was deleted. As such, I'd prefer that the articles stayed separate - they don't seem to be causing any harm as they are. JimmyBlackwing 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobari Saeko

I don't know a lot about Tobari Saeko [2] - All I know is that she is one of the characters that had kanji chosen for her... WhisperToMe 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megatokyo/Archive_4&oldid=228004628"