Talk:Peach Momoko

Sources/Citations
It's confusing to separate a large group of sources from the central list of citations. Is there any plan for this? If not, I'll start incorporating them in line with MOS:CITE. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. This is a properly formatted use of Harvard style citations, which are a Wikipedia accepted method. It is especially useful when sentences rely on multiple sources for their construction. Either way, my feeling is that right now this article needs to focus on getting the relevant facts inputed (with reliable citation sources) before any concerns for formatting should be raised. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to consolidate these references to standard citation style so the can be viewed/edited individually. This will also facilitate Wikipedia's recommended practice of archiving citations for future reference. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the delay in replying, I overlooked this note until just now. I am unsure what you mean, as there is no "standard" citation style. According to WP:CITE, "A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook." This article has been made using in a properly-formatted Harvard style, aka Author-date referencing. Moreover, all citations — when possible — have been archived for future reference (if they should become dead). Can you please elaborate on your reasoning? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The majority of articles that I see and/or edit on Wikipedia do not condense/combine the citations, nor do they divide the references. Example: Naoki Urasawa
 * The current split-format that this draft uses for citations makes them difficult to edit, especially when we run into cases of redundancy/overlap. As we continue to edit this draft, I suggest the references should be adapted to the format that will facilitate other editors updating and improving the article -- especially when the majority of sources will be from the internet (vs. academic journals or printed reports).
 * It's not a terribly big deal at present, and once the article is published, additional editors will help create the consensus.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the continued discussion. First off, please bear in mind that changing citation style on grounds of making "it match other articles" is not a valid argument according to Wikipedia (WP:CITEVAR). As for Harvard style being difficult for you to edit, for this I apologize; but what do you do when you edit any article that isn't in the style you prefer? As "Wikipedia does not have a single house style" (WP:CITESTYLE), you should be used to learning and embracing your non-preferred citation styles. And I'm not sure why you mention academic journals and printed reports, as no citation style (including Harvard) is limited to those in any which way.
 * I am happy to continue discussing this, but I really need to know why you think that the Harvard style citations are "inappropriate for the needs of the article," which is really the only grounds that Wikipedia cares about (WP:CITEVAR).
 * As for why I believe that Harvard is appropriate here, this article calls upon several sources to support single sentences, so Harvard's ability to consolidate multiple sources into a single footnote helps avoid inline footnote clutter through short citations. Furthermore, the centralized source list prevents any multiple citations from being broken if the first instance is removed — though, I admit, this is merely a personal preference on my part. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note: I am refraining from editing the article further until this is resolved, as I don't want to have created more work to change the citation style should you be able to validly convince me that the change is in the article's best interest. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an ultimatum, and there are several articles which utilize the format you established. Ex: Hayao Miyazaki. I suggest we continue editing the article to get it ready for publication asap, and evaluate each citation on a case by case basis. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I implied that you were making an ultimatum, as I know you are not. But we are having a discussion which could alter the article and thus should be resolved before continuing. And I'm not sure what you mean by "evaluate each citation on a case by case basis," as all citations must be done in the same citation style for consistency (as per WP:CITESTYLE). Can you please explain what you mean there? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You can see the citation style I use in my recent edits. I don't see any reason this would create a conflict or delay. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not being clear. Wikipedia requires all articles to use one consistent citation style, though that style can differ from article to article (see WP:CITEVAR). Right now, this article has two citation styles — Harvard and generic — which Wikipedia considers a "to be avoided" element. As such, your citations should be added in Harvard style to maintain the consistency of the article's citation style. Otherwise, they'll all have to be redone into a consistent style before submission.
 * I'm also curious why you deleted the ISBN numbers from the Bibliography, as including them is a rather standard practice, especially in instances where self-citing the work is deemed less-desirable. As per my understanding, citing the Portfolio in regards to the Portfolio should be avoided if possible, as it is not available to read online and it is not "available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections" (as per WP:INDICATEAVAIL). And since a reputable online source exists to cite all the information needed, citing the portfolio itself is unnecessary and should be avoided. Unless I'm missing something or have misunderstood something. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The ISBN numbers are also acceptable contained within the citation. Adding them as visible elements creates visual clutter in this article.
 * In cases of providing the ISBN as proof of publication, this is sufficient. There is no specific fact or evaluation of content about this portfolio being provided.
 * The generic style of citations is the easiest and most common format for editors, and we should future-proof the article to provide the most flexible platform for future edits and improvement. As I stated earlier, i don't feel the Harvard style is the best format for this content since most current and future citations will be web based and can utilize Wikipedia's modern citation format.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia policy concerning "visual clutter" of this sort. I agree that WP:MOS-BIBLIO makes the inclusion of ISBNs optional — "Provide the ISBN of one or more editions when doing so seems to be helpful" — but this is an instance where doing so saves us from making more primary source citations (in an article that is already bloated with them). And while an ISBN is sufficient when citing physical works that aren't readily available, it is always preferable to cite a reliable and easily verifiable source (aka something that exists online for anyone to read).
 * In regards to the citation style, you are rehashing your previous remarks, which I've already pointed towards Wikipedia policy to refute. And no citation style is future-proof, as all citation styles evolve over time — which is why Wikipedia employs templates to allow sweeping changes without tedious editing. Though, on the note of future-proofing, you should be including archive-url links in your references as that is the only way to prevent link rot.
 * Any which way, in re-reading this thread I believe I made a mistake at the outset and for this I apologize. Your problem isn't with the Harvard style of citation but rather with the list-defined references and short citations, correct? Regardless of the citation style used, these tactics would have to be employed due to the number of citations, lest we wouldn't be adhering to Wikipedia's mandate to avoid inline citation clutter. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Re: listing ISBNs separately, I'm not going to contest it if you revert those items to their previous versions. Since both ways are acceptable, it's a matter of editor preference. Regarding citations, if you look at the new citations I've added recently, you can see the style that I plan to use when adding new information to this article. I think the priority now is completing the copy revisions so the article can be published. --19:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the continued discussion, but I am confused… Are you expecting me to reformat the citations? Not only are you not using the consistent style, but you aren't using either list-defined references or short citations which this article's length needs to avoid inline citation clutter. Also, you are using the wrong citation templates — cite web  instead of  cite interview  and  cite instagram  (the latter source being non-archival and thus less desirable, btw) — and you aren't creating the archive links for the archive-url fields. Please advise. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm using the auto-generated template for citations. That' the limit of my abilities as an editor. If you or someone else wishes to convert the citation, you can do so.
 * As for the priority matter of publishing the article, let's aim for publication by the beginning of the year. That should give us enough time for copy edits and updated information--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ready for publication
After a few months of review, copy edits, and additional citations, I feel this article is ready for publication. I think a period of 2 weeks is sufficient for additional edits before we pull the trigger. Any objections? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my absence, but I've been dealing with some personal stuff. And, unfortunately, I still am. As such, I don't have time to work on this article so I leave the lead to you on this matter. Best. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)