Talk:Megatokyo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shizuhara Eimi

And what about Shizuhara Eimi ( http://www.fredart.com/fredart/artpage.php3?src=&ft=co&fn=29 )? WhisperToMe 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your second link reveals all, Both Saeko and Eimi are characters from Warmth[1] a unreleased work by Gallagher. -- Psi edit 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The prose

Overall, it's a great article. I still think there are a few patchy spots in the prose, but we'll work them out. — Deckiller 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the article (Main characters would be too tempting, so I've passed that over). (Thanks to Deckiller for cleaning up after my sloppy self!) Here are some thoughts:

• Spoiler tags for Main Characters.
• "Consequently, characters who speak L33t are frequently unable to effectively converse with those who do not." I understand it, but this doesn't seem essential for the lead.
• Aren't Largo and Erika a little more than friends? I always thought there was romantic tension there. Not a critical point, but the bit in Plot seems understated.
• I'm not satisfied with Miho's paragraph in Plot. I won't make it a sticking point, but it needs work.
• However, most of paragraph 3 of Reception seems unnecessary. Delete it, moving its first sentence to paragraph four?
• At the risk of unravelling a delicate compromise, would it be possible to make the note about the ordering of the Japanese names a footnote in the three subsections it's relevant? It's rather hard on they eye where it is.

The prose has sufficiently improved, so I have struck my objection. I still think the article would benefit from a consolidated plot/character summary, but I think it's ready to be a FA. Good job!--Monocrat 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Largo and Erika a little more than friends? I always thought there was romantic tension there. Not a critical point, but the bit in Plot seems understated.

Piro and Kimiko have both admitted to liking eachother; neither Erika nor Largo ever has. Other characters within the story have stated that they look like they're dating, but it's often based on misunderstandings. And there is definately significant tension, but the article previously said they were in a "relationship," which is just not true. --Masamage 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of Reception is necessary - it details one of the big things that critics of Megatokyo bring up. And it is definitely something worth mentioning, since it's so out-of-the-ordinary. JimmyBlackwing 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that it's important to mention that the critics mention those aspects. Hence the first two sentences of the third paragraph are okay. But is it really necessary to point out the website's short comings and refer to a fan site? How's this:

With a large supporting cast and several ongoing subplots, some critics feel Megatokyo is accessible to only a select audience and unfriendly to new readers. Although Gallagher states early in Megatokyo Volume 2 that he and Caston "didn't want the humor ... to rely too heavily on what might be considered 'obscure knowledge'", an article in The New York Times insists that such scenarios were unavoidable. The article commented that the comic "sits at the intersection of several streams of obscure knowledge", including "gaming and hacking; manga ... the boom in Web comics over the past few years; and comics themselves". The article also held that "Gallagher doesn't mean to be exclusive ... he graciously offers translation of the strip's later occasional lapses into L33t ... [and] explains why the characters are occasionally dressed in knickers or as rabbits". The newspaper went on to argue that "The pleasure of a story like Megatokyo comes not in its novelistic coherence, but in its loose ranginess".

To the point and a thicket of citations (omitted). :)--Monocrat 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

After stewing over it for awhile, I'm still not sure I agree. The fact that Fred Gallagher has never had official plot or characters guides is, in my opinion, a point worth mentioning. And the fact that fans have created their own character guides in response to it is a part of the comic's reception. I understand your want to trim down possibly unnecessary information, but I think this should stay. JimmyBlackwing 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On another note, would you be opposed to putting the notice about the order of characters' names on the top of the article? It would be pretty difficult to make it a note, and have it make sense at the same time. JimmyBlackwing 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather the note about the names stay where it is than what you suggest. :) But would a sensible compromise on the other issue be to demote mention about the lack of official character/plot guides to footnote?--Monocrat 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that one of Websnark's biggest reasons to stop paying attention to MT was that he couldn't keep track of the characters (since a lot of them look alike), and it annoyed him that Fred's words on the character space are "when I feel like it." If someone that well known in comics-review had such a huge problem with it, it seems well worth mentioning. Maybe not the link to the specific fansite, though (Oh, and Jimmy, he did have character bios up at once point, many years ago when I first started reading.) --Masamage 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the text in question could be reworked to refer to explicitly to Websnark and other reviewers' concerns?--Monocrat 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point of prose, from plot:

• When she is rediscovered by her fans, she allows Largo to teach her to build a computer in order to speak up for herself.

That sentence doesn't sound right, and I'm not sure it's totally accurate. (I've done some other work in the prose in plot, too, but I'm not sure how to fix this sentence.) --L33tminion (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She does allow him to teach her how to assemble a computer, but claiming that her reason is "In order to speak up for herself" is speculation. Largo's idea for the computer seems to be that it will help alleviate her "vulnerabilities in the digital plane,"[2] but he hasn't clarified what he means by that. Hargle 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed?

Odd. The result of the debate seemed to me to be a consensus that it should be featured. If no one objects, I think we should renominate it - it was so close to making it in before that it should pass through with flying colors this time. JimmyBlackwing 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A featured article needs to be the best of the best, and have a strong support. There were so many fixes just during the FAC that it makes me wonder what all is really left to make this article shine. I think the editors here should keep working on it based on the previous suggestions, and look for similar issues that might not have been pointed out yet. It seemed to me that the longer the FAC went on the more things people found to fix. At least give it a week or two before renomination. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eight very quiet days later..... --Masamage 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Renominated. Guess this means I have to admit that my earlier confidence was wrong, but it's ready this time. For reals. I think. --L33tminion (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More prose

From plot:

This event causes Kimiko to develop an idealized vision of Piro, which is shattered during a later meeting.

That sentence doesn't seem to flow right ("version... is shattered" doesn't quite seem correct), but I'm not sure how to fix it. --L33tminion (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, but it already sounded okay to me, so this might not have helped: "This event causes Kimiko to develop an idealized vision of her rescuer, an image which is shattered the next time they meet." --Masamage 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's better. --L33tminion (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"the story" paragraph

I took a shot at rewording this (ignore my edit summary - it is incorrect) to be more consistant with the rest of the article. Feel free to revert if no improvement. RN 22:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment about Gallagher

User:Fieari (in the FAC discussion) suggests that this comment be readded to the Reception section of the article:

Arguably, buffering some complaints is the sense of humility Gallagher typically gives off. As Tycho of [[Penny Arcade (comic)|Penny Arcade]] notes, "We've gotten on famously ever since I figured out that he legitimately detests himself and is not hoisting some kind of ''glamour''."<ref name="pennyarcade">{{cite web|last= Holkins|first= Jerry|year= March 27, 2006|work=[[Penny Arcade (comic)|Penny Arcade]]| title= The Doujinshi Code|url= http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/03/27 | accessdate= april 11|accessyear = 2006}}</ref>

I'm placing that text here so that it's available to whoever is reworking that section. --L33tminion (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've experimented a bit in my sandbox, and though I personally find this version to be far inferior to the current one, I believe it takes care of both User:RN's and User:Fieari's issues. JimmyBlackwing 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I pasted that into the article. It may need some further edits, but I think it's best to add it now and then edit it in place. Good work. --L33tminion (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Miho and Erika in Plot

My wording:

Miho is also involved in Erika's backstory. Her manipulation of Erika's fans after Erika's disappearance ended badly, with the TPCD cleaning up the aftermath and Miho hospitalized.

RN's rewording:

Miho is involved in Erika's backstory as well, manipulating Erika's fans after her disappearance; however, this ended up with Miho being hospitalized and the TPCD coming in to clean up the aftermath.

Masamage's rewording:

Miho is involved in Erika's backstory as well, having manipulated Erika's fans after her disappearance. The details of her actions are currently unknown, but they resulted in Miho being hospitalized and the TPCD coming in to clean up the aftermath.

Honestly, I still like my wording much better (I spent a lot of time working on that; while I think RN's criticism is still valid, I think the changed versions sound a lot more "awkward"). --L33tminion (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reverted back. I was trying to improve the flow a bit, but I don't think I succeeded there. Hmm, maybe something like

Miho also meddled in Erika's backstory, minipulating Erika's fans after her disappearance. While the details of Miho's actions are unknown, they resulted in the hospitalization of Miho and the TPCD cleaning up the aftermath.

(Not sure if my wording is correct as I'm unfamiliar with the comic although I use to have a roomate years ago who read the thing multiple times a day). RN 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Miho also plays a significant, but concealed role in Erika's life. Although she had attempted to withdraw from the life of a pop idol, Erika was unmasked by Miho, who leaked information to and manipulating the former's most devoted fans. Although her motives and exact methods remain unknown, the sudden appearance of crowds of Erika's fans required intervention by the TPCD and indirectly led to Miho's hospitalization." All three proposals (including the status quo) feel rushed. Even if my proposal is rejected, I think this part needs verbal expansion (there are enough thoughts running around as it is).--Monocrat 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not right either, it confuses two different events, and there is also some speculation in there:

• Miho was not hospitalized as a result of the "fanboy riot;" the event that caused her hospitalization happened well before the beginning of the comic, and has not been elaborated on as of yet.
• "Erika was unmasked by Miho" is speculation, there is a good deal of evidence (but not absolute proof) that Dom was the one who did it, and virtually none that it was Miho.
• "Miho also plays a significant, but concealed role in Erika's life." has some basis, but not enough to make it a verifiable fact. She was involved in her backstory, but whether Miho's actions had a significant effect on Erika's life is still unclear, so claiming it is a fact won't work. Hargle 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the material, so I was expanding what was here. The whole thing needs to be cut, or condensed simply to "Miho has also secretly manipulated Erika's life to an unknown extent." So there are two main options: expand the wording, or cut some thoughts. --Monocrat 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an important fact, so I'm heavily opposed to cutting it. I'd be fine with expanding it if that can be done cleanly, but I still don't see why expanding it is necessary. What facts need to be included that are not in the original version? Does it need to be clerer that this is a part of the story that the readers do not (yet) know much about? --L33tminion (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant facts are mostly in #799 and #800, for reference. In #805, Inspector Sodona refers to the incident with Miho as "the one time [he] almost lost Tokyo". --L33tminion (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Erika's disappearance

From Masamage's edit summary:

Also, "death of a fan"??

It's alluded to in #582 and elsewhere that Erika might have killed one of her fans. --L33tminion (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oho! I forgot about that, thanks. On the other hand, "possible death of a fan" is all we can say for sure. --Masamage 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Erika isn't known for being gentle with her fans. I think this wore off onto her roommate.(Coffee pot of doom!!!111one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunao shimomura (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Caston Leave

From RN's FAC objection:

"now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used

He's right that "as of [date]" would be more accurate. When did Caston officially leave Megatokyo? --L33tminion (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. I've done a little searching, and according to Piro[3], the actual falling away was gradual. I guess the closest to official one can get would either be the date of that blog post (which is ridiculous, since it's from 2005), or the date they signed the financial agreement on how to split future monies... which I can't find the date of. Zut! --maru (talk) contribs 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just use the year. --Masamage 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend using the date in this one. It's the first time their split was announced. JimmyBlackwing 19:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured!

Eeee! High-fives and WikiLove for everyone!! :D --Masamage 03:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, people. Bask in the glory. Ryu Kaze 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, w00t! --L33tminion (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 has pledged a bounty of $50 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Megatokyo's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!

50 bucks for Wikimedia! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 was a sockpuppet, and his owner has left his main Wikipedia account. I doubt he'll show up to give the $50, unfortunately. JimmyBlackwing 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all that contributed. Though I myself haven't been able to do much but I have been watching the progress for +3 months and we have definately come a long way. "w00t" indeed ^_^ Ariolander 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

\/\/007 17 4^5 |=1|\|411y 833|\| @(431\/3|). Megatokyo is finally a featured article thanks to everyone. I wish that I could have done more for this but school and camp prevented me from doing so. -Vcelloho 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone! Despite my stubbornness, I'm glad to see hard this featured and all work well paid. :)--Monocrat 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, do we have a Main Page date lined up? Where do we get one? --Masamage 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Nifboy 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was preparing to post a request there--asking for October 18th, because it's fairly soon and was the date this strip appeared--but I hesitated because of our lead section. It's not very exciting; I don't think it would quite work on the main page. Any suggestions? --Masamage 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:TFA: "The Main Page includes a section where an adapted lead section from one of Wikipedia's featured articles is displayed." If you look at the lead for today's featured article (Simon Byrne, as I write this), and then look at the write-up on the main page, you'll see that they are actually very different; so I don't think that should be a big issue. Hargle 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. Anyone want to try their hand at a writeup for the lead? --Masamage 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a finished product, but here is my attempt. Any tweaks or suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm~. Not bad, but I'd recommend skipping right from "written and illustrated by Fred Gallagher" to "Ranking among the most popular." That's the stuff about what Megatokyo is. The stuff about Rodney is part of its history, which is better suited to the guts of the article itself, especially considering how confusing it tends to be. --Masamage 08:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed it around a little. I think the stuff about its availability and date of beginning should stay, using Watchmen's TFA as something of a template. I still get the feeling that it's missing something, though. JimmyBlackwing 08:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of megatokyo in relation to becoming Today's Featured Article. I was looking on the request list and I didn't see anything. Is it still being written or has it been accepted? Vcelloho 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a request was ever made. Nifboy 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...we all got distracted and never finalized a Main Page writeup. Probably we should get going on that again! --Masamage 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonada Yuki

Hello, Anonymous Bosch here. Sonada Yuki is rising in status from minor and major character here. I surf behind proxies for a number of reasons, and as such, cannot add to articles. Sonnada should be added to this article.--124.40.46.120 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel wordism?

I support changing

While critical reception to Megatokyo has been largely positive, with praise from sources like The New York Times,[7] it has received negative criticism from some sources as a result of Gallagher's changes.[8][9]

to

Critical reception to Megatokyo has been largely positive, with praise from sources like The New York Times[7]. It has received negative criticism from some sources as a result of Gallagher's changes.[8][9]

Why?

"Convoluted syntax. Weasel words require some convoluted syntax to get a point across. "A square has four sides" is a simple sentence; "Though not universally, squares are widely regarded as having an even number of sides that has been conjectured by experts in the field to be approximately four" wraps the key point in layers of syntactic obfuscation, leaving it to be harvested out of a strange little participial phrase by the reader." from Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words WhisperToMe 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, having read and grasped the concept of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words long ago (in response to User:WhisperToMe's message on my talk page). I do not see any point being put across with the current sentence structure. I believe that separating the one sentence into two destroys flow, making it read poorly. I do not think that any "convoluted syntax" is being used. Also, I must note that the proposed change removes only one word, which is a far cry from the example given. JimmyBlackwing 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Separating it into two sentences that are short and say the opposite thing from eachother, with nothing flowing between them, is clunky and harder to read. --Masamage 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Masamage, if you look carefully at the former, it insinuates that the "It has received criticism" is more valid than "It has received praise" - We do not need any sort of POV in Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you come up with a solution that reads nicely, I will not object. --Masamage 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I could come up with something that may "sound nicely" - Of course, that should be a secondary concern. NPOV, according to Jimbo Wales, is non-negotiable. Also, many transition words that sound great in essays completely ruin Wikipedia articles. WhisperToMe 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite structure is to start out by saying that a thing has received both positive and negative commentary, then state each in turn. It keeps things fluid without requiring any "on the other hands" in the middle. --Masamage 18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is acceptable to say "X asserts A and Y asserts B." One has to be careful with the wordiness, as that can give unneeded connotations. What I did with my attempt at reorganization is identify the people making the good and bad reviews. WhisperToMe 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the need to comment that the new version, which is currently viewable on the page, is the worst yet. While still lacking in proper flow, it turns the previously well-written sentence into a redundancy-filled mess. I stand firm that the original is superior in all ways. I might mention that ignoring one rule (featured articles must use brilliant prose) to fulfill another, particularly when the change is contested by two people, is not an advisable practice. Also, changing the part in question before the discussion has reach a consensus is generally frowned upon. I'm reverting it back to its original state until we're done here. JimmyBlackwing 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Anyway, I was told on #wikipedia that I am 100% justified in reverting since WP:NPOV is non-negotiable - Also, the article must name sources that "praise" and "criticize" Megatokyo. WhisperToMe 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - NPOV is a non-negotiable issue and must balance the article so it does not appear to be biased from either side. The sources who praised and criticised Megatokyo must be named and added to the article. The article in its present state is unbalanced and POV due to the current wording. Thor Malmjursson 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note: Even though the sources are mentioned later in the article, I believe the sources should be mentioned in that first sentence anyway. WhisperToMe 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the sources praising and criticizing the subject should be mentioned in the first sentence, as well as later on in the article, per reasons stated by Thor Malmjursson. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am not trying to negotiate NPOV; I am saying that there are no NPOV problems in the first place. I do not see how the current wording constitutes as POV-pushing for either angle. However, since there is a sudden consensus that the wording should be changed, I can't really do much about that. As for sources who praised and criticized Megatokyo, they are already mentioned in the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and adding a bunch of needless information would go against yet another Wikipedia guide. If the wording must be changed, so be it, but WP:LEAD dictates that it is not necessary—and is, in fact, detrimental to the article—to specifically name a bunch of sources. JimmyBlackwing 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it 'consensus' so much as 'everyone else getting tired of arguing'. --Masamage ? 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If there are no substantial objections, I will change the paragraph tommorrow morning :) WhisperToMe 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

info to add

former use of Megatokyo domain (forum mounted by R. Caston): http://web.archive.org/web/20000420160654/http://www.megatokyo.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by D hanbun (talk • contribs)

Sad girl in snow redirect

Why was Sad girl in snow erased and redirected here (supposedly as a merge) when there exist no references to this phenomenon in the article? -Seventh Holy Scripture 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the decision was that it didn't deserve coverage at all, and the creation of a redirect was a pity gesture. I'm not advocating this either way, just reporting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad girl in snow. --Masamage ♫ 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

There is no reason to remove spoiler warnings. No policy dictates that they are unacceptable, and no consensus has been reached as to their use. They are largely a matter of user preference, so going to articles with the sole purpose of adding or removing them is a waste of time for both sides. Many users do not expect spoilers when spoiler warnings are not present, due to their long-standing presence on Wikipedia. Until a policy is made regarding the use of these, things should remain as they have, and as such the spoiler warnings on this article should be re-added. JimmyBlackwing 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Spoiler and come by Wikipedia talk:Spoiler if you want to participate in what will be happening - David Gerard 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to participate in what's happening. I want people to stop vandalizing articles on my watchlist. JimmyBlackwing 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with process in progress does not make this vandalism. JuJube 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrators mass-removing {{spoiler}} tags and blocking anyone who replaces them is worse than vandalism. Keep this ridiculous conflict in its proper place, and stop disrupting the encyclopedia. Most people could not care less about all this, and would prefer having nothing to do with it—myself included. However, until the "discussion" has properly concluded, I'm going to revert anyone who removes spoiler tags from articles on my watchlist. I don't care how the "spoiler war" ultimately pans out, but I'm not going to allow a few POV-pushers who like to abuse their admin powers to walk over everyone before they've actually convinced them in proper discussion. Good day. JimmyBlackwing 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What use of admin powers? - David Gerard 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this discussion. JimmyBlackwing 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you really have no right to complain. JuJube 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually have more right to comment on to protest this than someone involved in the debate, because I have no side to promote, and merely represent the common Wikipedian. As a common Wikipedian, I resent POV-pushers appearing from nowhere to remove spoiler tags because they don't like the way the overall discussion is turning. JimmyBlackwing 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an act of real hubris to state that you represent the common Wikipedian. If you have strong feelings about the subject, participate in the debate. Not doing so but continuing to complain is, put simply, sour grapes. JuJube 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a common Wikipedian, and by "represent", I simply mean that I'm making my feelings on this known. I don't claim to be the voice of every common Wikipedian. Also, the only thing I'm complaining about is that this is the second article on my watchlist to get protected for edit warring. Otherwise, I wouldn't be complaining at all--I'd be reverting. Go argue about the spoiler war with someone who cares about it, and leave the mass removal of spoiler templates for when you've gotten a consensus to do so. That's all I'm going to say. JimmyBlackwing 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for warning that sections on plot and character discuss plot and charcter. --Dragonfiend 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Miho's Character Page

Surely Miho's character entry should at least mention her connection to Piro and Largo through online gaming, if only to place her in context? It wouldn't have to constitute a spoiler if worded properly. Just seems far too abstract at the moment, missing the most vital aspect of who she is in the story. Talking at length about her being a goth is pretty wayward. --boiled_elephant 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please start new discussions at the bottom. I think it's true that we should mention her connection to them, especially now that Wednesday's comic has explicitly provided us with the wording that Pirogoeth and Miho's avatar were lovers. --Masamage ♫ 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

...which, in turn, is only confirming what was heavily suggested in 432  :-) I'm gonna try me hand at reworking it now. Feel free to revert or modify if I do a naff job. --boiled_elephant 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a criticism section

A passing mention of some website in the introduction doesn't count

Also, I'm stoned. @_@ Enok^talk 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That brief mention in the lead is a summary of the "Reception" section, which is exactly a criticism section.Kazu-kun 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, don't agree. Changing the section accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Themes

It seems to me that a major theme of MegaTokyo is the collision of the realistic world in which Piro lives with the surrealistic world of Largo's. On one hand, we have Largo's developing relationship with Erika, where Largo obviously learns things about real life, and on the other we have characters (such as Yuki) coming to terms with a world that's less predictable and mundane than they had thought. The conflict between Piro and Miho embodies this: to Piro, Miho represents a part of the world that he doesn't understand and fears to accept or even acknowledge, whereas to Miho, Piro is of the mundane, but the only member of the faceless masses who not only resisted her manipulation but turned it back against her.

The characters' normal romantic relationships (Piro/Kimiko, Largo/Erika) belong solidly in the world of reality. Zombie invasions, rent-a-zillas, and magical girls fall belong to the surreal. Largo believes that, as an inhabitant of the surreal world, it is his responsibility to protect those in the "real" world from dangers they cannot see. Erika, as a former actress portraying a magical girl, falls in between the two realms. In fact, the conflict between the mundane (her relationship with her former boyfriend) and the surreal (her fans' conception of her as a magical girl) is what caused her breakup and the emotional harm that resulted. Her relationship with Largo is really about their struggle to belong to the mundane world in the face of threats from the surreal (such as Sony's attempt to control Erika's power).

Anyway, that's my 2 AM armchair deskchair analysis. 128.205.161.206 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in general; the comic even discusses this idea in the Pirocam/Largocam strip. --Masamage ♫ 20:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With Todays strip, it could imply the whole world we had seen so far was in the video game "Megatokyo:Ov3rl04d" maybe explaining the apparent differing 'realties', as its been a game the whole time? KA --122.104.47.165 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

change to "American video game enthusiast" for intro

I thought it necessary to indicate Largo as an enthusiast of American video games. Just saying "video games" assumes he likes both types equally and that Piro isn't a fan of video games himself - when in fact, they both love them, but Piro prefers Japanese games and Largo American ones. I included American in the link text so the reader would know I meant "lover of American video games" and not "video game lover who is American" (since that implies Piro is not American, when both main characters are). Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Porn site

Not really encyclopedic enough to document, but megatokyo.com was originally a porn server running out of the office of Erols Internet in Virginia under the desk of a person in a management position. I worked there at the time. It ran for quite a while and staff were tasked to categorize the porn, until the CEO got wind of it and pulled the plug. The current megatokyo.com was born shortly after, I think the owner bought the domain name from the Erols person. Interesting anecdote, but I doubt anybody will want it in the main article ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.88.31 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be fascinating for the article if there were any way of getting it reliably sourced, which I suppose is unlikely. --Masamage ♫ 08:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is REALLY not relevant material to MegaTokyo, now is it? This article is about the current webcomic, not the web domain. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'Plot' section

This section needs a lot of work, I think. It doesn't seem to be chronological (rather, each paragraph seems to be detailing a different character or dynamic), and of course it's a bit outdated by now. In any case, even if we do fix it, the nature of the webcomic means that the Plot section will be usually be out of date unless someone is willing to update it every time something important happens in the comic. I think we should take a look at how they've done the Questionable Content article and try to do the Plot section here in a way that's more similar to that. Thoughts/suggestions? --Politizer (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it would be out of date considering the glacial pacing of the comics story. ZING! SiberioS (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the section is poorly written and needs work. See WP:NOT#PLOT. It shouldn't be a step-by-step rundown of every event that happens during the 8 years the comic has been around; rather, it should be a concise description of what the comic, in general, is about. --Politizer (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support a rewrite of some kind. It's a featured article; it should be as high-quality as we can make it. --Masamage ♫ 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Individual Character images

With the character images in place here on this page, it does seem rather cluttered, whereas the Main characters of Megatokyo page has no images and thus looks rather bland. Wouldn't it be better to move the individual character images over to the character pages instead? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should work out a single group image and use it in both places. --Masamage ♫ 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? --Politizer (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The image is good, but will need some cropping. I still think individual images for the characters page is more appropriate, since there is a large portion of text under each character. Individual images will give more focus to that character when reading the description of them. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 3a: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Group shots are acceptable and is "compliant" rather than individual character images. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The neon lights one is cool, but Miho is barely visible, especially shrunk down, and it'd nice to have her since her profile is out here. Unfortunately, there are no group shots of Piro, Largo, Kimiko, Erika, and Miho. One idea is that the first three are represented in the image at the top of the screen, so we could try for one that has at least Miho and Erika, and not worry about whether the others are in it. --Masamage ♫ 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just suggesting that one because it's the most recent, and is a poster that he put a good amount of time into. If you want to include a separate image (probably with Miho, Ping, and Yuki...although there's not any promotional material with the three of them in it, and it might take a while to scour the comics for a single panel with all of them), I would totally support that.

The only other problem someone might point out is that the image I linked to above is in color, and therefore may not be the most informative representation of Gallagher's artistic style. (Personally I'm ok with that, the color image will make the article look a lot prettier...but someone may bring that up.) --Politizer (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You already have an example panel on the page, which is being used to help illustrate Fred's work and artistic style, so I don't think you should worry about using that colored image to help with character identification. Not with me anyway. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, although I'm also inclined to think that maybe one of those images should be exchanged for something else of our choosing, since there is no image showing the four "main" characters (if we can assume that Piro, Largo, Kimiko and Erika are the most central characters). --Politizer (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)