User talk:Borealis translation

November 2015
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Osamu Dezaki— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not unconstructive, it just needs better arranging and suitable presentation.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Osamu Dezaki— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not unconstructive, it just needs better arranging and suitable presentation.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Osamu Dezaki
Thank you for your edits. I for one am happy that someone is translating pages for these sorts of articles. I'm also glad that you've chosen to continue with the edits in a more manageable way.

However I think the problem is one of workflow. I'm assuming that you simply copied the displayed text from the Japanese article rather than the source code, which was the cause of the wall of text. While I appreciate the breaking up of the text and formatting, it still leaves the issue of inserting the references and other non-formatting code back into the text. Whereas if you had copied the source code and translated around it, the process would have been much simpler and saved a lot of work and time. Considering the amount of work and time needed to translate the article, any way to make it easier would be of benefit.

In this case it is probably easier either for me to do this work around your step-by-step edits or to do the remaining text insertion for you after merging the source code back in. The latter option would allow you to translate something else, assuming you want to while letting someone more familiar with wiki code to do the fiddly bits. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm sorry but this isn't going to work in it's current state. Again, I can appreciate the effort in translating the text from the Japanese article but the amount of work needed to bring it to standard is arguably more than it would take to do it in the correct way to start with. I've tried going through it myself to add the necessary references and wikilinks but it's just not feasible to do so, although it doesn't help that my Japanese is not up to the task. There is also much more detail than is needed and yes, too much detail can be a bad thing. Any detail needs to be built to a solid base, and that should be the initial focus. I would suggest a concise breakdown of the more important works and points of his career and then to build on that. An overview of his career should be the first step, not the specific details of each work. With his list of credits it's just too much to talk about everything. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect, I was fully intending to go back and fix the links once I got the entire document down later today. My Japanese is up to the task and it would not have been more work that I was willing to put in.

As for an excess of detail, well, to me that doesn't make much sense. People come to wikipedia to learn about a certain subject. Why would you want to withhold readily accessible information from them? Furthermore, if it's good enough to be on the Japanese version, why wouldn't it be good enough for the English version?:::Like I said before, I can't fault your effort but there are better ways to go about it. Rather than clearing it up after the fact, you should do it as you go along. I can accept that maybe you don't know how to go about this, which I can help you with. This is something you can do at your own pace in your own user space and then move to the article when it is finished or you have sections ready. That would be the usual way to go about such a long and complicated article.


 * As for detail, articles should be easily approachable by a reader. Too much detail can be to the detriment of an article, especially when it's all added in volume. As for the comparison to Japanese wikipedia, thats a whole different topic. Essentially it boils down to a different way of doing things and ultimately depends on the article and content. However we end up back at the accessibility and readability argument again. Even if you add all the detail, at some point someone will have to reduce it to more of an overview. It's just very difficult to read and process all of the information and some of the information could potentially go to the articles of the topic they discuss.


 * I would suggest that instead of translating the article word for word, summarising the main personal events and major works and career moves concisely would provide a clearer overview that would attract readers. A wall of text may be heavy on detail but if people won't read it due to length there isn't any benefit. For someone like Dezaki who is typically overlooked in the west, less is more. The works table can show all his credits, the body should sum up why he is of importance rather than document his every action.


 * I'd like to help you because I think you are doing a good thing and you want to improve the article. However some things are perhaps easier to learn from experience than to explain so you might not agree with me on any of this. It can be difficult to see how being concise is better than sheer detail but I can see why it might not make any sense to you.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Wikipedia was crowdsourced and open to anyone who had useful content to contribute. But when 2 hours of work can be deleted on the whim of an editor, I question whether that model still holds true. Perhaps expanding upon this topic that interests me greatly and investing much of my personal time isn't worth it for this platform. I'll take my content and work elsewhere.
 * It is, but that also means that your own content can be edited by others. Wikipedia has general suggestions and standards, with different areas having their own aimed at their areas. Your work is not being deleted on a whim by overly protective editors, it's being reverted for not being ready so that it can be improved. I'm trying to improve articles myself so trying to help people understand the right way of doing it is just as important as adding content. I'm trying to explain to you how your contributions can be improved further, not to destroy your work, which I have already stated my appreciation of the effort. However if you can't accept that free editing of content goes both ways and are unwilling to learn and to listen then I can not help you. If you want to learn how to contribute in the right way so people don't revert your work, then you must be willing to listen and learn like we all have had to do. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just popping in for a comment: it may be best to work on the document in your user space first (say, at User:Borealis translation/Osamu Dezaki) until you have everything the way you want, and then pop over to WT:ANIME and discuss how best to move it over. That way, you can get all the formatting working the way you want before making it live in mainspace. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)