Jump to content

Talk:Oh My Goddess!/Archive 3

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

Spoken word version needed

We still need a spoken word version of this article and its respective articles to replace the out of date (and artifical) version currently uploaded. -Dynamo_ace Talk 4th January 2006

Well... the article will have a full scale rewrite.... --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

With Cool Cat disappearing, we need someone else to so the spoken word version of this group of articles. Anyone up for it? -Dynamo_ace Talk

OK, Cool cat is not dissapering but we still need a spoken word version here. Anyone up for it?

Elsewhere, this article is now 30kb, i.e it is overloaded. If you plan to reorginaze the article, now would be the time.-Dynamo_ace Talk

AMG TV Exclamation Mark Stub

Nicely done. I am glad I actualy saved the differences. You removed the commented-out material ^_^' --Cool CatTalk|@ 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I perhaps over archived but I really feel all that discussion was dead/concluded. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is Oh My Goddess! special/diferent from anything else

I know Oh My Goddess! inspired anime/manga significantly. Anything around over a decade has to influence the industry. This article should mention this. Plot and other such details are avalible in sub articles. After all that was the FAC criteria we failed to meet. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

As stated on WP:EL: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. It's not appropriate to link eight fan sites from this article. It is even less appropriate to link the same eight fan sites from all seventy-two articles which have anything to do with the topic. If there's a specific web page which gives more information about Skuld, for example, then link to it from Skuld's article; but do not link from Skuld's article to the home pages of eight Ah My Goddess fan sites. - Brian Kendig 20:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been to all the fan-sites. They provide different aspects at different levels of quality. Gateway to the goddess provides in-depth coverage and over analysis, as well as trivia. Feather provides a broad information basis thinly expanded over general topics, etc. The point of the article is to provide as much coverage as possible, as well as regards to our own. The multiple sites possess different characteristics, and as such are valuble to the reader, not to mention appealing to an mainstream auidience. Its also notable that they are very useful resources.-ZeroTalk 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad these valuable sites are out there, and I'm glad people have Dmoz and Yahoo and Google and other tools by which to find them. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Wikipedia policy specifically discourages what you're trying to do (see m:When should I link externally). - Brian Kendig 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, if you're going to link to information about (for example) Gan-chan, have it link specifically to a web page about Gan-chan, not to the top-level page of a web site about Ah My Goddess. There are many precedents for this in Wikipedia: for example, movie articles link to their IMDB entries instead of to the home page of IMDB.com, and individual Star Trek articles link to their corresponding entries on Memory Alpha instead of to the top level of Star Trek fan sites. I'm not aware of any other fandom which Wikipedia allows to link to the same exact site from every article pertaining to the fandom. - Brian Kendig 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have your facts wrong my friend. Many other articles follow this method, and considering the popularity of the manga and series as an whole, its no wonder to realize the concensus for this.
The thinly-veiled policy (which I've seen before) that you kindly directed me to prohibits agaisnt blogs, Forums, non-neutral links and links that have little to do with the source material, which is clearly not the case here. It also states External links are a very good way of pointing to authorative reference material that supports facts in the article, as well as Where one has written some wikipedia content by lifting facts from an external webpage then it is polite to reference that webpage and particularly now that the Wikipedia content is easily downloadable for offline or other use, it's convenient to have the material available "locally" and licensed for any use. which supports my previous thesis above. These links are perfectly constructive and expansive to the article. They assist in the task of engulfing the reader into informative analysis and expansion. And they are perfectly within policy, as well as within wikipedia's goals.
However, I have given it an small discrestion of thought, and I hear what your're saying. I agree the number of sites could be trimmed down a tad in the respective section, and I'll do as such. But this does not justify your complete eviceration of all of the external links from the articles-ZeroTalk 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Triming down sites is fine, although I am more inclined to keep it as it is. I do not want to force my favorite fansites, instead few notable sitres which should satisfy all. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to link to a specific web page which is the source for information you've put into an article, the link to that page goes into the article's Sources section. If there is one widely-recognized predominant fan site which is authoritative on a subject, then link to it from the subject's main article. Otherwise, do not try to use Wikipedia to do the job that web directories and search engines already do so much better. And using a template to put the same exact site links into every article about a topic, that's still very wrong: first of all, you should link to a specific page dependent on each article, not to the top level of the fan site every time; second of all, if the fan sites are so ephemeral that you think you need to edit seventy-two different articles often enough to require a template, then these definitely aren't the kinds of fan sites that should be linked from Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The official site is been recreated (done from scratch) linking to spesific pages would not be very usefull, wikipedia covers better than the official site atm.
The information person reading exists on wikipedia as well as other websites. I'd like to link to them. I would like to achieve what you ask but its too demanding for me atm. If you'd like to assist ad replace the generic links with spesific ones you will have my graditude, however please do not delete the working system. I can agree to trim down the number of fansites to 2,3 sites. One fan site is few, reader should have alternatives. I want reader to access quality fan sittes which google doesnt always return. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This conversation seems to have spread across this talk page, your talk page, and my talk page. As it's a general-interest issue and not only between you and me, I'm going to remove it from my talk page and consolidate it here. What I would like to see is:

  1. List the official site and no more than one fan site on Oh My Goddess!, Oh My Goddess! (manga), Oh My Goddess! (OVA), and other high-level articles. You asked if we can make it two or three fan sites instead - okay, I think that's acceptable, but how about just providing a link to the relevant Open Directory categories instead? [1] [2] That way we provide all the links without playing favorites.
  2. Remove all official site and fan site listings from articles about individual characters or episodes, unless you have a link to a page specifically about that character or episode. If there IS a page for a character or episode on the official site, then link to it from the appropriate article. If there IS NOT such a page at this time, then provide no link.
  3. Remove the template, since any links which would have to be changed often enough to require a template are most definitely not the sorts of links which belong in Wikipedia. You said that the template makes it easier for you to apply the same links on similar pages, but my whole point is that the same links should not appear on similar pages. What would you link from every AMG article? Not the official site's home page, because that belongs on the top-level articles. Not a fan site's home page, because that too is already on the top-level article.

I would like to help with the AMG articles; in fact, I was thinking about watching the series and contributing to each article as I went along. And I think you've done a terrific job with them - they're full of a great deal of information! (In part, that's the problem - you've made it so there's really no need to link to other sites; the information is already here in the WP articles!) However, I still do not believe that an external links template is appropriate in this situation. - Brian Kendig 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, its good that you know that, and how to obtain it. However, your suggestions are akin more to demands in the sense that you don't really seem to be willing to bend in favor of Cool Cat's suggestion ethier.
In order for this to work, this comprimise must, I mean must work for both sides. It had gotten off to an fairly good start, but your lack of knowledge in the series, as well your personal view on the site's operating effeicentcy in regards to the insertion of these links causes an laudible cause for doubt. While I respect and see your viewpoint on the matter, I also realize that you are unable to support it with veritifible fact or policy. The policy that you provided me with also does nothing to support your thesis, or even given it an correct factual observation. I think that ideas from both sides sound sensible. And I think it would be great if we'd all agree to this, as your actions indicate an lack of conformity to engage in discussion prior to your actions.
I would suggest that, if you think about it, you'll realise that you're not talking about freeing up information agaist web directories at all, but of taking and evicerating the work of other people's established concensus without proper approach to discussion. This whole website is founded on respect for intellectual property. Taking source links down and enforcing one's view on the subject of how external links should be operated isn't what this site is about at all. -ZeroTalk 09:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opion, the list is baised as there is no sites that are covering the TV series. Only the manga and OVA are being covered. Hardly fair. I suggest we adjust the templates to cover sites relating to all the versions. -Dynamo_ace Talk

A couple of thoughts for Zero. First, please don't accuse me of "lack of knowledge in the series" or imply that this means that 72 different articles should all link to the same fan sites. Also, I am backing up my position with the policy stated in WP:EL that no more than one fan site should be linked, if any. And I completely don't see where you're coming from with your talk about 'eviscerating the work of other people's established consensus', etc. The only thing that I am working to communicate here is that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and it's inappropriate to link to the exact same fan site home pages from each of 72 articles pertaining at all to the topic. I've proposed what I feel are better ways to link to fan sites (linking the home pages from the top-level articles, linking only to more specific pages from the sub-articles), but you haven't acknowledged this. I bear you and Cool Cat no animosity, this is not a personal thing and I greatly respect your efforts, and if the consensus comes out "against" me then I'll have no problem with that. I would like to invite other people to comment on this; would you have any objection to my filing a request for comment? - Brian Kendig 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of insulting you. I did criticise your surprising ineptness at constructing and following a logical argument based upon policy (WP:EL does not back up your thesis), but I did so in a civil tone, not in an slanderous onslaught. Lest you continue to be in any doubt about this serious failing of yours, given your decision to involve yourself in policy discussions, I'll elaborate here.

  • Your argument "First, please don't accuse me of "lack of knowledge in the series"".

Not at all. I merely give an analysis of the comment "in fact, I was thinking about watching the series and contributing to each article as I went along", which gives the impression your knowledge in the series is lacking. If it isn't, I apologize, but the statement certainly imposes the idea that you claim not to convey.


  • "...or imply that this means that 72 different articles should all link to the same fan sites.."

Absolutely not. Look at the proceeding conversation and the comments on the template talkpage. We've already established that everyone agrees with you , and I've already scrapped the idea of using the template for that purpose. No one has yet to even argue you on that basis, and you continue to bring this aspect up. There are many more creative ways for us to utilize this template.


  • "Also, I am backing up my position with the policy stated in WP:EL that no more than one fan site should be linked, if any".

In that case, then you have even less grounds to claim that you are supporting your stand on the subject. Please point out to me where, specifically the policy says this.


  • "Wikipedia is not a web directory, and it's inappropriate to link to the exact same fan site home pages from each of 72 articles pertaining at all to the topic. I've proposed what I feel are better ways to link to fan sites (linking the home pages from the top-level articles, linking only to more specific pages from the sub-articles)".

This is very hard to believe. Are you claiming that the comments I left on your talkpage, Cool Cat's talkpage and the template talkpage don't exist? In all of these posts I clearly summerized to you that I agreed with that point.


  • "And I completely don't see where you're coming from with your talk about 'eviscerating the work of other people's established consensus', etc".

My last go. The insertion of the oringinal template clearly sat well with other people, and you seem to be the only one opposing its exsistance. This one sticks to the bare bones of policy. Add the fact that your userpage states as such. Fairly obvious stuff I should have thought.


  • "I would like to invite other people to comment on this; would you have any objection to my filing a request for comment?".

I doubt that's really necessary. It's boiling down to your failure to construct a logical argument, supported by correct factual observations, to support your thesis. Please allow more people interested in this subject to comment before we take such an course of action.-ZeroTalk 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Oh my goddess Extlnk disccusion

{The below is an previous and ongoing discussion copied from the template's talkpage)

In hopes for an agreement, I'd like to see if I can reach an agreement on this matter. The tempalte does have its usage, however, it might not be sensible for simply an calloboration of external links. I've changed the header to Sources and references, which is correct. Henceforth, the template can be utilzed as an link portal for references. Proceeding the template, I can place specific links to an fan website (or two) pointing to the subject in question- hence an external links section. I'm still specualting on the workability of this, and other's idea's and suggestions would be appreciated. -ZeroTalk 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Using a template to put the exact same links on 72 different articles still seems very wrong to me. If there's information on the fansites that's specific to a given article, then link from the article directly to the page with that information. But if the fansites are just general to the topic as a whole, then link them from the general top-level article, not from the individual specific articles. What you're doing is like linking to the home page of IMDB.com from every article about a film - there's simply no use in that. - Brian Kendig 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. So here's what we'll do. We'll construct an list of website's we need and do not. I'll go to each website and gather specific URL's for each website that pertain to each article. Upon doing that, we'll manually insert those into each article. Henchforth, this template will be used for sources instead of exernal links. How does that sound..? -ZeroTalk 13:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking from an article to individual pages which specifically provide more information about the article's topic, like for example linking from the Skuld article to a page with details about Skuld: that's good and appropriate. This can go into an External Links section; at some future time when the information in the fan page is pulled into the Wikipedia article, then it can be cited in a Sources section. Which links do you still intend to have the same in every article (by use of a template), though? - Brian Kendig 15:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just answered that question. We'll use the template for refenrence and source links. Wikipedia policy encourages that we cite our sources. In the creation of these articles I can verify other editors and myself used these fansites in the construction process. Instead of inserting the sources section in manually, we can proceed to utilze this template for that purpose. The external link section can be just as you suggested, including minimal amounts of websites (one should suffice) that point to an specific page about that character. -ZeroTalk 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we misunderstand each other. I thought you were saying that you would use static links in the template (as had previously been done before I raised the issue) so that every article would have the same exact set of links to the same exact pages in it. That's what I don't feel is appropriate, neither for Sources nor for External Links - because these links, being the same in every article, would not be specific to the articles they're in. If on the other hand you're saying you'll make a template similar to the IMDB template - one to which you can pass parameters from each article, so that the template will create a link that's specific for the page it's on - then that's a really good idea. - Brian Kendig 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm saying. -ZeroTalk 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! Go ahead and post the specific text you intend to use for the template, so we can make sure we're on the same page. I think it would be fine to use something along the lines of Template:Imdb name or Template:Memoryalpha. - Brian Kendig 17:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I am estatic we came to an agreement. Words fail me. -ZeroTalk 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done an redesign. I'll insert it into Skuld, and get back to me on my talkpage regarding your thoughts.. -ZeroTalk 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been working on it - it's changed when I've looked at the article a couple of times today, but right now I don't see any article-specific links in it. When you've gotten it to a point that's ready to talk about, please let me know here, and we can discuss it. (Not on your talk page - this is an article issue, not a user issue, and I want it to remain visible.) - Brian Kendig 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I just now looked over the work you did on the template. I don't think that gateway.cjb.net would work very well for a template; only a few characters there have pages of their own, and the URLs don't seem to have a consistent format to them - it would be easier to link them directly from articles, without using a template. On the other hand, www.noblescarlet.net does appear to be structured better and a template would be easier to use for that, so perhaps you could create a new template, maybe named "AMG character" or "NobleScarlet.net" or something similar? I think the template would be coded like this:

[http://www.noblescarlet.net/lexicon/{{{1|{{{name}}}}}}.php ''{{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}''] at NobleScarlet.net]

And called like this from an individual page: {{AMG character|name=Belldandy}}
or: {{AMG character|name=Skuld|title=Skuld}} (when the page name differs from the character name)

Let me know what you think. - Brian Kendig 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering simply allowing the template to be processed for deletion. The URL reason was an great idea, but for some reason, I cannot get it link to the character pages (It prompts an 404). Inserting the links in manually may be the best course of action. -ZeroTalk 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Continuing the discussion from Template talk:Oh My Goddess Extlnk (thank you for copying it here!), let's discuss what our goals are and then we can find ways to accomplish them. First let me make sure we're still on the same page:

  1. Are we agreed that we don't want fansite links from the various AMG character/episode/location articles unless those links go to pages specific to the articles?
  2. If so, then can we make sure that the pages link from any given article actually contain enough meat to make them worthwhile? That is, don't link from Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) to a page which duplicates the info already in Wikipedia. If a particular fansite page contains a whole lot more information about a character, episode, or location than is already in the corresponding WP article, then a link is fine.
  3. If it appears that a template with variables (like the IMDB template) would be useful, I'll help get it to work. But if it appears that a template wouldn't be very useful - either there are too few pages out there with more info in them than Wikipedia already has, or the fansites aren't set up in a way that would make it feasible to use templates - then we'll just hardcode links instead. I'll help with this effort, too.

My goal is still to move away from simply listing fansites to providing links to targeted information that's beyond what Wikipedia contains at present. Someday, editors may copy the information from those fansite pages into the WP articles and drop the links; but for now, links to individual pages are okay, and I'll help you put them in. - Brian Kendig 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all points you've presented above. I can not see why we were in disagreement in the first place. The only problem is getting the URL's to work. -ZeroTalk 21:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Would you like to start by coming up with a list of URLs of pages on the fan sites which contain substantially more information than the WP articles contain - the pages which should be linked from their respective articles? If you'd like to go through and find the pages to use and list their URLs here (also listing which article each one is for unless it's clear from the URL), I'll try to come up with a template for them - and if I can't, then I'll start putting them into the articles directly. At the same time as I do this, I'll be removing the old template with the static links from each article - actually, on second thought, I'll start with one article, then show it to you and make sure we both agree on it. Sound okay? - Brian Kendig 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! The two fansites that feature bios on each character are:
  • Gateway to the Goddesses These feature overanalysis bios featuring character personality, outfits, etc. It only features these on the goddesses and demons, however.
No, I meant - give me the specific URLs of the pages about each character (and episode and location) which contain more information than what's in Wikipedia. For example, http://noblescarlet.net/lexicon/skuld.php would be one, except that I don't see anything in it that's not already in the WP article. Rather than me going through each of these sites and using my own judgment to find the individual pages which would make for useful links from the WP articles, I'm trusting your judgment. - Brian Kendig 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant. As per above, the specifed links operate quite well for the noble scarlet site as you demonstrated. The Gateway to the Goddesses site is the URL I cannot get to work when I atempt to link to an specified character domain. If you can accomplish it, we'd have our qualm evicerated. -ZeroTalk 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. You've only specified two links, and neither of them are to a character/episode/location page. :) I'd like you to go through those two sites and list the URLs you feel should be linked from Wikipedia, the pages which contain more info than what's here already. Based on the number of URLs you give me, and how they're formatted, we can figure out whether or not a variable template is feasible. - Brian Kendig 21:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Please go to this site, and search for the character bios. Try to make an link to them. You'll see for some odd reason, the URL doesn't change proceeding the top of your window. -ZeroTalk 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The site is using frames, that's why the URL doesn't change. (I don't know why they made it use frames, but it is.) Right-click in the window and select "Open frame in new window" (or the like) and you'll see the URL, or there might be a "Copy URL of this page" or something like that. If it still gives you trouble, let me know what browser and operating system you're on and I'll duplicate it here and figure out how to get it to reveal the URL. - Brian Kendig 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bringing here a discussion between myself and Cool Cat: Cat, we do not want to link from every AMG-related article to a page on each fansite. We want to only provide a link where a page on a fansite has substantively more information than is already in Wikipedia. That's why I'd like either or both of you to put a complete list here of the specific URLs of the pages you'd like to have linked from the WP articles - not all possible pages which have any information about AMG characters/episodes/locations, but only the ones which contain more information than is here already. Then once you paste a list, we can decide whether it makes more sense to use a template or to simply paste these links directly into the articles. Does this make sense? - Brian Kendig 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess a sub space anomoly is interfering with the communication. Let me rexplain:
  1. The "OFFICIAL" site is undergoing masssive construction. Few weeks ago they had information about every character. Now they only have information about 4 characters. They also have information about every episode aside from 25 and 26. There is a patern on how the stories can be accessed and I intend to use the template to this end.
  2. One fansite is inadequate, I do not want my taste (which fansite I like) determine which one will apear on wikipedia. Granted wikipedia is not a link-o-rama as well and 3 fansite links (how it is now) is fine. Please do not get stuck with policy.
  3. The external links section should be moved off of the template meaning the ==External links== needs to be moved to the individual articles.
  4. So the template will have 1-4 links including the official site however only relevant link (based on the data passed) will be shown.
It takes time and effort to design such a template so please withdraw the deletion request so I can work on the template. I had this planned long before you made the tfd.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 11:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is a page out there which contains a good deal more info than the Wikipedia article, then I see no problem with linking to it until some one has the time to bring that information into Wikipedia. If there is a page out there which does not contain as much info as the Wikipedia article, then please explain to me why Wikipedia should link to it? And, whipping up a variable template is a matter of only a few minutes, and I'll even do it for you. Please list the specific URLs you would like to link from Wikipedia (the pages which have substantially more info in them than the corresponding Wikipedia articles) and then we can decide the best way to go about putting them into articles, whether directly or by variable templates. I think the breakdown in our communication is that you have decided that a template is necessary, but I don't even know what specific pages we're linking to yet. And you can't have a template decide whether or not to show a link; if you're going to conditionally show links from up to four different sites, then you need to create four different templates. Again, I will help with this, but please list the specific URLs to link to so that we're all on the same wavelength. - Brian Kendig 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No I do not need 4 templates. Spesific links are avalible on individual articles. And yes the system you are looking for is already implemented and applied to all Oh My Goddess! articles I can think of.
Can you please witdraw the deletion now?
--Cool CatTalk|@ 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on - I see you kind of came out of left field and changed Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk to something of a complexity I had no idea you were working on. It appears that what you've got might be a good solution. Would you explain it here, would you document how it works and how to use it? - Brian Kendig 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking over it myself, I see how it works - I admit I wasn't aware it's possible to put a conditional into a template. Good work. It's much better than the previous solution of listing eight fansite home pages in each article, but there are still two issues I have with your template. First, it links to specific pages on each site even when they're not very useful (NobleScarlet.net in particular doesn't seem to have anything in it that Wikipedia doesn't), and it's fairly complex; I still believe you it might be more appropriate to have a separate variable template for each site, in case an article doesn't want to link to all three sites in the Extlink template. But these are minor issues; in general this template appears to be a much better solution than what was previously there. Let me look into this a little more, but I believe it may be appropriate to withdraw the template deletion request, since the template is substantially different now than it was before. - Brian Kendig 17:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my confortious nature. I have had dealt with too many deletions recently and perhaps am a bit burnt. I actualy had this kind of a design in mind but were hesitant as I was waiting for the official websites construction to complete. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Template is like this because it gives me great liberties. This template for example can be used to regulate categories. That is in my to do list. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oh_My_Goddess!/Archive_3&oldid=134401705"