Jump to content

Talk:Mechademia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Table of Contents

[edit]

Given how common lists of episodes for manga and anime are in Wikipedia, I see no problems in providing a table of contents (ToC) for Mechademia. Nor did I see any specific reasons in either of the policies cited that mandate the exclusion of scholarly ToCs from Wikipedia articles. In fact, I see a positive reason why, in this particular case, they might have considerable value. Mechademia is a scholarly journal, and is very different from the usual fan-written compendia about manga and anime that one finds on the net or in fanzines. The list of titles provides a stronger sense, in my opinion, of what Mechademia is all about that a merely descriptive sentence or two. One can object that the Mechademia ToCs are available elsewhere on the net, but the same is also true for lists of episodes of manga and anime. So I can see reasons to keep the ToCs. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not familiar at all with manga articles, but, hey, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is not an indexing service. WP:NOT specifically mentions that WP is not a directory. Indiscriminately listing the contents of a publication most certainly falls under this (be it a book or a journal). In all articles on academic journals, such contents listings are routinely removed. What sometimes is included is a short (3-5 items) list of most notable articles (with clear criteria of why these articles are "most notable" and not some idiosyncratic preference of some random editor). --Crusio (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. The articles show that Mechademia is a scholarly journal, not a fanzine. That's useful information. Nothing in directory prohibits listing a ToC in such a fashion; your interpretation of directory is just another opinion, nothing else -- and certainly isn't consensus about this article. So far as length is concerned, I myself would like to shorten the ToC by omitting the reviews. I have no idea what you think a "notable article" might or might not be; I'd prefer to list them without the POV I think is implicit in your comments. (BTW, your sentence -- "In all articles on academic journals, such contents listings are routinely removed" -- is itself an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Timothy Perper (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should add another point here. Mechademia is, I believe, the only scholarly (= peer reviewed) journal published in the United States that deals solely with manga and anime. So it operates in a world filled not with scholarship but with enthusiastic and ardent fans, who write blogs, reviews, fanzines, and a wide variety of internet-based material on their favorite stuff. Not all fans of manga and anime like Mechademia or its approach (read the actual reviews if you don't believe me). So I firmly believe that we do readers of Wikipedia a disservice if we merely lump Mechademia into the same assemblage of writing on manga and anime that is far more common in the US-based internet. That statement is neither for or against; it merely says that Mechademia is not ICv2 or Newtype (magazine), two of the better known (IMO) fan-directed magazines about manga and anime. It is, I agree, a minor point, but I think it's an easy and useful point to make. So removing stuff from this article needs to be balanced, I believe, by a need to disambiguate the purposes of Mechademia as compared to Newtype (magazine). Or that is the basis of my current thinking about this question. I hope that's clear. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the ToC is excessive and would be a violation of WP:IINFO as it has no baring on the subject or have any relevance to the general reader. Such things would be better to list in WP:ANIME/R, which is an editorial resource. However, since the journal is published annually, a list of issues would not be entirely unreasonable or a violation of WP:NOT. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Farix. There is a difference between episode lists (that are logically connected) and the TOC of an academic journal (where the only logical connection is that the stuff appeared in the same journal, but generally covers many different subjects). Mechadamia is not lumped into anything: the article as it stands makes it very clear that this is an academic journal. Its uniqueness as being the first such English-language journal is mentioned in the lead, as it is adequately sourced (even though I don't really know whether that website is a WP:RS). Many academic journal articles profess such "first"/"only" claims and, again, these are routinely removed unless sourced (and if you think that equals WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you really are mistaken). There is a longstanding consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals that tables of contents are out. I don't think lists of issues are necessary either, but as they have individual ISBNs here, I think it is justified to leave that table in. --Crusio (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, then, remove the ToC. But take my word for it, Mechademia is not Newtype (magazine). Timothy Perper (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the word "first" in the lead and replaced it with "a" -- now it reads Mechademia "... is a is a peer-reviewed academic journal..." Which is true. While I'm at it, another problem with the word "first" is that other journals, like the Journal of Popular Culture, also published in the US, has had articles about manga and anime. So let's stick with the indisputable facts and avoid stuff about "first." Any objections? Timothy Perper (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. In fact, I often see this kind of claims used to make something look more notable than it is. That is not a problem here, there are multiple sources (the reviews - including notable sources such as the Library Journal), so notability is not in doubt. I had only left it in here because there was a source that said something similar, but I agree this is better. --Crusio (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: - please see this discussion from 2009 where a consensus was formed to keep the table of volumes in the article. Please restore it. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My take from this huge page of (old) comments is that there is actually consensus not to have such a list. This would in fact be the only journal that I know about where the contents would be given in detail. Note that below is a link to an annotated bibliography in project space. WP is not a webhist, this kind of info belongs on their homepage, not in an encyclopedic article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is an old comment page, that means the consensus has existed for a long time before you deleted the volume list. The anime project explicitly encourages volume lists in their articles. Each volume of Mechademia has a different focus, which is no longer apparent in the article. This kind of information belongs on wikipedia. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And at that time, consensus really didn't seem to be clearly towards inclusion. In fact, the discussion in this section seems to be one editor who argues for inclusion and finally concedes "Well, OK, then, remove the ToC." Anyway, I have added the information that each volume is dedicated to a specific topic to the section "Volumes". The catalog of back issues belongs on their own website. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? My reading of the discussion is that the anime people got it how they liked it, then the academic journal people said 'no' and tried to gut the article. I have added some more information to your summary of the topics being devoted to different issues. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the previous discussions, there was no consensus to remove the listing of volumes. There was a consensus to remove tables of contents for each of the volumes (which I agree with), but that's not the same as a list of volumes. I see no valid reason for the list of volumes to be removed. There is no consensus now (or back then) to remove it. @TheFarix, Timothy Perper, Crusio, and Guillaume2303: as they participated in the previous discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Timothy Perper is dead. :( --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just saw that, too. We didn't always get along (both being somewhat strong-willed), but I think he helped improve many things here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mechademia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the volumes

[edit]

Both user User:Randykitty and anon User talk:122.108.141.214 have been removing and adding volumes to this article. Please, I request you to avoid an edit war which might result in a block of both people. As a result, discuss the problem here before editing the article again. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to discuss rather than edit war. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: A list of volumes is not a table of contents. Your removal of the list of volumes is not based in any policy (no, not even WP:NOTDIR). The article is about the series of academic books, and listing the volumes is an integral part of that. Please explain clearly why you think a simple list of the volumes violates a policy (or even a guideline). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: - the discussion has continued up here: Talk:Mechademia#Table_of_Contents --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, saw that. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you regard this as a book series and not an academic journal, I think a list of volumes with ISBNs and such really is not encyclopedic content. It's up to the publisher to list their catalog, not WP. I maintain thsi violates WP:NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book series that happens to be an academic journal. Each volume has an ISBN, and the "B" stands for "book". I'm curious why you think Wikipedia can't (or shouldn't) list volumes of books in a series? We have many lists on Wikipedia which are elsewhere online and offline. Exactly how is this any different? In the area (anime and manga) where this academic book series falls, it is strongly encouraged to list all of the volumes with their ISBNs and release dates. This is common practice and de facto (at least) MOS for an article like this. If the article was listing the contents for each volume, then I would agree it violated NOTDIR. However, a list of books is not a directory. The entries didn't even list the authors of all the articles for each (or any) volume. Go and read NOTDIR again, then come back here and explain exactly which part of it this list of books violates. Please be very specific, because in my reading of it, I can't find anything that even comes to close to being applicable in this instance. It seems others can't either. In fact, one part of it states, "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." These would be considered creative works, so making a list of them (without pricing or availability information, which is specifically discouraged) is specifically allowed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I seem to be in the minority here. I've no time for an extended discussion here, so I'll restore the list, including the links ("references") to the publisher's site where our readers can order those books. --Randykitty (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between including a ref to the publisher to prove the volume exists and promoting the website. Every ISBN on the site (as long as it's formatted correctly) links to a page where people can choose from a large number of sites where the work can be purchased. The reference links are no different than that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mechademia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mechademia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mechademia&oldid=1195220133"