User talk:G.A.S/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:G.A.S. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The following has been moved here from the talk page on 23 September 2007.

RE Episode lists (just remembered one thing...)

Back when we were working on the episode list, I had another version of it, with some additional stuff written before each summary (new characters introduced, new weapons/attacks used etc.). These sections sort of made the summaries look a bit more advanced (i.e. not just retelling the plot, but giving some basic info). Maybe we could use such sections in the episodes' articles, if we make any?

(On a side note: Japanese Wikipedia actually shows which episodes were directly based on the manga - this is an interesting thing to mention, and we never bothered to do this even with the first episode list...) 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that will make it interesting to read. Great idea! G.A.S 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Found pic of Pudding but..

The pic is flipped the wrong way. Are you able to flip images? I've tried, but it doesnt work. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/kawaiimewpurinchanimg/scan6.JPG

I'm not sure why we need this pic, as it doesn't even show "Reborn" written.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p3/Yume_no_Kishi/puddingringinferno.jpg (flipped back to normal)

夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AoD: I use MSPaint to flip images.

Yume: Thanks you.

G.A.S 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Content Notes

I notice that only Zakuro has her pun of her weapon move to the content notes section. The others can now be moved to a content notes section. Would you mind doing this? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved them, but I don't like "content notes" sections anymore. (They are LONG.) 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the content. G.A.S 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The notes themselves may need a bit of trimming and/or reformatting, but I think it is better for explaining certain items that would otherwise break the flow of the articles. Esp. items that has to do with language usage in the original Japanese (i.e. for the Japanese reader, it need not be explained, for instance the puns).

The content notes in Che Guevara are much longer however, but imagine how that article would read should they be moved into the article itself.

Personally I think that although the sections are long, they greatly improve the quality of the article.

We may consider changing the font size to match the source notes.

Will that help?

G.A.S 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I do agree that these notes look better in a separate section (some of them just look out of place in the articles themselves), but the sections in some of the Mews' articles are just too long (Ichigo's and Zakuro's articles have three comments placed in these sections). I don't know... I think we can try using a smaller font and see what they'll look like, but I'm not sure... what if we add some more notes eventually? They will look huge then, because the TMM articles are pretty short compared to some others. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 19:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We should consider if some of the content in the notes are encyclopedic material, however, and if it is not more appropriate on the talk page.

They should be converted to paragraphs where possible, they will take up less space then. Consider though, in Che Guevara there are 21 content notes.

At this time, I cannot think of specific additional content notes that will be required, we can think what to do when they are needed.

We are sort of between a rock and a hard place at the moment...

Regards, G.A.S 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the two articles again, most of the notes seem to be fine, but Ichigo's age's note need some cleanup. I am not sure how at this moment, but it reads like original research. (I am referring to the parts that read as speculation and research — "the evidence presented below", "why ... is unknown" and "It should be noted that...".) G.A.S 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the comment about Ichigo's age had been there for a long time - before I started editing Wikipedia, it said that Ichigo ages 11 to 13 during the series (it was me who originally pointed out the mistake). When we added info about Tokyopop's "11 years old / 7th grade" thing, we simply edited the old note without really rewriting it, 'cause we were too lazy to write a new one. ^^; Some irrelevant stuff is still there, so the note may need a complete rewriting now... 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Zakuro's weapon translation seem to have the same problem.

Stricktly speaking, the OR is the part explaining why the error is there; merely stating the error + citations is correct — the issue is that a conclusion is made.

Regards, G.A.S 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now B-class?

taken from a part in my talk page:

"I'm curious. How could the original Mew's character articles get up to a B-class article? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply because they are long enough, and there isn't much to add, so most of improvement is just rewriting the existing text. ChibiChibi's article is even shorter, and it is also B-Class. To get something better, one should basically only work on rewriting/arranging what is already written, and adding sources. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But: Ichigo: rated start class. Mint: rateed B-class Lettuce: start-class Pudding: start-class Zakuro: start-class. I thought Ichigo would be the one rated B-class. Why Mint's? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that simply nobody bothered to change their status. I think B-Class rating can be given by an ordinary user, but you'd better ask G.A.S about this. I don't think they're still start-class. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"

I'm also thinkin they're B-class. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to research this, but I think you are correct. Who assigned the ratings when though, 'cause it must have been a while ago, I noticed it a while back too. If it is clear that a lot of work has been done since the prior assessment, upgrading to B class would be appropriate. See also WP:1.0/ASSESS. G.A.S 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tokkyo Mew Mew article layout

Can you give me like a basic layout of how the article will look a while from now (on my talk page) ? Like i know theres something about adding a reception section and media sectio. Just givein a basic layout will make eaiser for me when I feel like do a revision. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I see a new article on the TMM manga, and the characters' articles now only have the anime section (and this section will later go to the anime summaries, I suppose)... What will these articles look like then? 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea — I do not think a separate article can be justified. G.A.S 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I never even thought of putting the manga description into a separate page. The story is short - only seven volumes and a two-volume sequel; there isn't much plot difference between the two versions - compared to Sailor Moon, anyway, - so the story is pretty much the same as in the anime, and I see absolutely no reason for separating them. Especially if it involves cutting out huge parts of other articles. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh....this is officaly annoying me. Why are you talking here, when it would be more logical to talk to the person who made the article. sheesh. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Making a lead is too hard...

I've given up on making a lead for the main article be myself. Can you give me an idea of what to do? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 03:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The best is too complete the rest of the article first...; I myself am not too good at this yet, and will have to give it a try. First though, I would like to get the citations in order; the cite templates are easier to maintain, and half of the citations are not correctly presented anymore in any case. They do require a bit more information though, see my previous edits.

The list's lead is pretty much adapted from the featured lists, so that might be a good starting point. G.A.S 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see like 3 things I need to add to the book citations. accessdate: that would be the day it was added right? edition: I'm confused what this is. date: I'm assuming this isnt the same as accessdate so I have no clue what to add here. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Accessdate=date you looked it up (probably the same as the citation was added)

Date=date or year the specific book was printed; usually inside cover or near copyright information

Edition=also near date usually (I guess this is the reason some of a la mode covers mention Reiko on the cover and other do not.)

G.A.S 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it you?

ja:ノート:東京ミュウミュウ. Was it you by any chance that asked the question? Either way,

"Ichigo's "Reborn Strawberry Check" reborn Chemera-anima to normal animal, it is certain. And many Japanese children don't know a word "Reborn". It sounds like a magic spell for them. Because manga staffs might have thought it is no problem to use "Reborn" in other character's spells."

I'm thinking of adding this to the "reborn" section. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. G.A.S 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, because I dont recall anything about you saying you knew enough Japanese to ask a question, since I remember you needed some things translated in the TMM media article. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a little help. G.A.S 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused about the status of MMP

according to TV.com, MMP "Airs Next: FOX at Saturday 8:30 AM (30 min.)" Is this rrferrinng to when it still aired? and its rating are (or were) "Ratings Rank: 1,186 of 16,786". do you know about ratings to determine if this is good or bad? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Date: As far as I know, the site does not give air dates on the main page, unless it is for the next air date. But I think another source should also be checked, maybe an online schedule of some sort.
Ratings: Unfortunately I do not know much about their ratings, I think it has to do with how many hits the show get/how many times the show is visited on their site during an amount of time as opposed to other shows, but I do not know whether it is meaningful.

Regards, G.A.S 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can there be a Production for TMM?

Looking at other articles that are FA and GA class, they appear to more well known and popoular, which is how some how have interviews with the creator on how the anime or manga came into being. I dont I could ever find info on this. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANIME — "Production: This is a difficult section to define, and can, if appropriate, generate several sub-sections and even whole sections. Topics that can reasonably be included are: the origins or inspirations of the subject; homages to other works or artists; notable production staff (typically: directors, leading voice actors, and sometimes producers or other personnel); music; issues arising from the transition from one medium to another (e.g.: manga to anime, anime to film, etc.) or from one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication). Although this is an amorphous section, avoid making it a list of trivia. If tidbits of information cannot be cited or worked into a coherent discussion of the subject, reconsider including them."
This is currently adaptations and the like

Anime vs. Manga will go here
Translation go here (This might need moving - but it is only small sections)
I think "Characters' names origin" will also go in here ultimately
Refer to list in wikiproject article

I hope this helps, if you require help in planning it, just ask.

Regards, G.A.S 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw this; I just went offline a little afterwards. Now my questions: According to the article layout, "Differences between the original versions and adaptations" go in the plot section; in this case the manga and anime. Does it still fit better w/ the production section?

"the origins or inspirations of the subject". tokyo blk cat girl would go here right?

"such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication". MMP right? couldnt I mention like the italian version then link to the main article?

THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not quite say "issues" is the same as "differences". I think this has more to do with what in the Manga made production of the Anime easy, difficult, or challenging. This would, for instance include the fact that the original writers helped/did not help with said production.

Origins — yes. But a source that say so is crucial.

Alterations — MMP vs TMM yes. MMP/TMM vs Italian. Not sure, depends on the length of the section.

Regards, G.A.S 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins - finding a source that tokyo blk cat girl was the inspiration of TMM, in next to impossible; just finding info on the Mew 5 was hard, so I dont think I will be able a source. According to Ikumi TBCG "was a project she finished before I started on Tokyo Mew Mew." and according to her site, the next thing she worked on was Petite Mew then TMM. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

she also says for TBCG, she chose the word "Tokyo' just because it sounded nice. Could this be also true for TMM? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian episode list

When are you gonna intergrate the Ialian episode lists in the media article? It kind looks out of place in the International article. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is needed — this is the English Wikipedia. I proposed it before the episode content was added as it would have added some bulk to the article, but I see little sense in doing so now; the list is long enough.

Part of the problem is that there are multiple translations — If one is added (except for the original and the English one) all of them should be added (WP:NOT#INFO).

Your thoughts?

G.A.S 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

hmm...I guess I could add it to the Italian wikipedia instead as two other language wikipedias has their episode titles. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to add the ISNB's of the manga?

The Japanese wikipedia list the Japanese, English and Spainish ISBNs, so you could add them also. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at how List of RahXephon media does the ISBNs of the manga and books. TMM has 7 volumes (+2 possibly; I have not decided on them yet) and at least 3 translations (of which we have the ISBNs). To say the least, I do not know how I am going to handle the layout, as either way, the table is going to be too wide. Do you have any idea how we could handle this (without having to split up the table)?

A thought: If I add the other info and summaries for the manga, each one could justify an infobox, or similar layout in a table, with this information.

What do you think? G.A.S 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....maybe like elfen lied. The manga are in the table, but in a vertical fashion. But still...can add scroll bars in articles (my userpage has one for the wikimood and some UBX)? You other diea sounds good to. hm. I guess you could try to see how it works. Hopefully it wont look too cumbersome (both your and my idea) THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also been meaning to ask this but its slipped my mind many times: The spinoff article. Just about everything in it will be moved to the media section right? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I will only revisit the manga section when I am done with the episodes. Elven Lied only has one translation though.

I have added ep 4 to the talk page.

RE the spinoffs, did you mean "media section" in the main article? In which case; yes, but some editing will be required to get it up to standard first. Characters specific to the PS2 game/spinoffs/prequel will need to be mentioned, as they are now, in the game/spinoff/prequel description; but not in the characters section, to avoid confusion.

Regards, G.A.S 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Essay

I'd probably mention "an episode that is too short, or does not assert notability with reliable sources"...as size isn't the only reason, and an article can be huge but contain no reliably sourced information that provides any context as to why it needs it's own article.
"get rid of" - probably not the best word choice. It sounds like we are deleting the material, and I'm sure you're aware of the backlash the word "delete" has caused over these articles.
"In the past there were a movement of redirecting" - probably should be "was". There are other c/e things, but I'll just ignore that which can be fixed later and has nothing to do with the mission statement
"mere redirection of pages are not acceptable" - I assume you mean "mere redirection without discussion", because technically the redirecting of pages is what this essay is discussing.
"Clearing up such articles that are really not worth keeping." - same tone as the "get rid of". Comes off like we are saying "this sucks, let's delete". Maybe something like, "Finding suitable homes for articles that are too small, or do not establish notability with reliable sources"
"While using established procedures." - I'd put this in the heading of that subsection instead, it isn't really a goal or ours, but how we want to handle the goals
"The article has not undergone major editing recently." - Might want to specify that the article has all these problems previously mentions, otherwise someone could say "we should redirect article X, because it has no activity" even when article X is GA or FA. It's stupid, but so having directions on a bottle of shampoo. There's someone out there still in the shower on that "repeat" process.
For speedy delete and prodding, I'd explain that articles that are created for episodes that have yet to air, or just recently aired, are probably prime candidates for this. Or, articles with shear basic information (writer,director,airdate), as there would not really be an edit history to really need to preserve. And make note that few articles will meet the deletion criteria.

The rest looks copasetic. Also, I don't know if you thought about it, but you could list Smallville (season 1) as an example of how one can merge short, non-notable episodes into one article, while keep all the real world content. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it again when I get home in an hour. I'm at work and technically shouldn't be on here (new rules, stupid state department). I have to review Through the Looking Glass (Lost) for FAC first, but I will leave myself an email reminder to look over your proposed essay right afterward. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Added all Table of Contents

I took the time at a book store to get info out of a la mode 2, along with the table of contents. The table of contents is very differnt from the one used in TMM though. I guesss you can add them in to the media article now. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you — G.A.S 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you happen to know why the access dates of the manga citations in the main article arent showing? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I suspect they are not supposed to show. Also have a look at the automated peer review I did on the main article's talk page. It seems there is still a bit of work to be done. Regards, G.A.S 20:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

"Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)"

I think I got rid of all, but I'm not sure. Do you see any? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes: "Several", "Various", "many"(?), "Sometimes"(?). I will rerun the peer review later and I can do the copy editing part when the rest is done. G.A.S 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Several:"Various other CD albums and singles contain the theme songs, the characters' image songs, transformation music, and two insert songs by Rika Komatsu[26] — Glider and My Days (Ano Hi wo Wasurenai)[27]." - Uhh; character songs are on a different CD, theme songs are on many...wouldnt this just the number of all CDs?

Various other -> The

Many: "... but there are many new characters..." - do I really need to put a number?
"Tokyo Mew Mew has translated into many languages" - looking at brocasters section in the international article, its 14, but that only cause there info about them; there are probably more language of it, but no info.
"..has been seemingly canceled many times.." - I'm unsure if there can be a number on this one..

many new characters -> rm many

many languages-> other(?)

canceled many times -> not sure about this one, seems to be OR.

Sometimes: "outgoing and sometimes a bit of a ditz." - I dont think i need to remove it here
'Sometimes alterations were made.." this would require know all TMM versions which is impossible.. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

sometimes a bit of a ditz -> at times

Sometimes alterations -> This needs to be reworded, I will do it during copy editing

Regards, G.A.S 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I'm done, so the only thing left is the copyediting. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?

What do you mean by "Last part of sentence is incomplete"? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

These last parts of the sentences, after the last comma/"and" makes no sense; even when read with the preceding part. Something is missing:

gaining special abilities and different appearance...?
...initially to help Ichigo find the other Mews?

Regards, G.A.S 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey?..

I accidentally wandered into WikiProject Anime's discussion... what does this mean - we'll have to merge the TMM characters' articles into some "List of characters in Tokyo Mew Mew"?.. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the discussions here and here. Basically what it comes down to is that certain editors want to get rid of non-notable articles of episodes and characters. Per [Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] they define notable as having secondary sources (dedicated to the article, eg. a source for Ichigo's article, as opposed to a source for TMM in general that mentiones her).

This should then allow the article to be less of a plot summary.

See this example for the reasoning behind this.

This might thus affect (some of) the friends and enemies articles eg. Keiichero, but I do not think it will affect the main characters' articles.

In the same breath, it means that once-off characters need no mentioning at all, unless they are significant.

Pe sonally I think they are not following the spirit behind the notability guideline anymore; and are ignoring summary style altogether.

Your comment? G.A.S 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll say I've seen anime characters' articles that are much worse than the TMM ones, that are really unsourced. And I think primary sources are sometimes more reliable - as long as you just cite the text without attempting to give your own interpretation of it, - because any secondary sources are created by people who also have some opinion on what's happening in the story......

For the plot part, you are correct, primary sources are ideal. But the content of the article should be more than a plot summary, hence the need for secondary sources.

For instance, if you take Sailor Mercury (GA), a lot of the information is in-universe (With primary and secondary sources), for it to become FA class, it would need content about character design, reception, and a critical analysis of the character (etc.) which are only available in secondary sources. G.A.S 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the article is nothing but a pure plot summary (though many character stubs are like this - this type of articles often starts from just a plot description), and it really can't be rewritten in any other way (which is the case with secondary/one-shot characters) - then it is probably not worth keeping.

Idealy this type of characters should exist in the main article or a list of article. (Until such time the content justifies seperate articles)

By that I mean that the article should not start off as a stub, but when content are moved to a new article per WP:LENGTH. G.A.S 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For "victims-of-the-day" type of characters... I don't really have a special opinion on it, but imagine if the 200-episodes+3-movies+2-specials-long Sailor Moon had a full list of MotD or VotD... 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Point exactly, that is why the two lists in TMM may require a rethink. I would say it makes sense to move information about the families to the characters' articles, remove once-off characters, and move some of the shorter characters' articles there.

Regarding fair use images, we should first determine that no single article has too much images on it. G.A.S 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF

I reverted this edit of yours. Indeed all articles must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. There's no alternative, it's absolutely mandatory. Incidentally, I was the one who edited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Notability and undue weight to its current status and replied here. —AldeBaer 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While I see your point, I do have an issue with the overpowering authority "must" has. I would like to remind you that WP:WAF is a guideline and that you are contradicting the following: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed, but it has exceptions; use common sense when applying it.". And again; note the word "should". Comment? G.A.S 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As with all guidelines, WAF is based on policy. In this context, "should" conflicts with policy in that it implies that there may be circumstances where policy allows for something else than using the real world as the primary frame of reference, which is not the case. The common sense statement you quoted concerns specific points of writing about fiction as laid out in the guideline page. Those, in contrast to the general requirement of writing from real world perspective, are less firm "rules", subject to constant change. —AldeBaer 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "should": The use of the word "should"[1][2][3] as opposed to "must"[4][5][6] is not intended to be used as a loophole: I rather "should" be used as it recognises WP:IAR (a policy) and "WP:WIARM". G.A.S 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I expected WP:IAR would come up... you see, writing with the real world as the primary frame of reference merits no exceptions. There are no circumstances under which such a basic rule could ever be ignored, so in my opinion it doesn't apply here. Consider e.g. WP:CIVIL which likewise says "people must act with civility toward one another".

Also, the point about WAF is that there is basically not a single fiction related article that places too much emphasis on real world aspects, but loads of articles which contain nothing but in-universe style plot summaries. The emphasis in WAF should (pun somewhat intended) therefore be to stress that plot summary articles and in-universe perspective in general are indeed bad. That's why I'm wary of anything that could be interpreted as a loophole. I'd be willing to accept the admittedly friendlier sounding appeal to common sense "should" if a far, far greater portion of fiction related articles were in a half-way acceptable state, but unfortunately they're not. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A yes, but how can WP:IAR apply to Wikipedia:Civility? (I see the counterpoint — "But how can WP:IAR apply to WP:NOT#PLOT" — and that is also why "should" is the correct word to use – It has no loophole)

I refer you to WP:WIARM#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean — points 1, 3, 4, and 5. As such "should" is not to be interpreted as the wish of the guideline but rather as the dictionary defines "should" — "... an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory..." as opposed to must ("to express obligation").

Regards, G.A.S 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we've both made our positions clear: How about putting this on the WAF talk page and see what others think about it? — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, since you are porposing the change, would you post it to WT:WAF? — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. After doing a bit more thinking, I reworded it to say "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference." Does that sound ok to you? — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)