This is an archive of past discussions about User:KirtZJ. 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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Accel World. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Linking to your user or user talk page in your sig
Hello. I see you're working on Accel World. Just want to tell you something. There has been (rough) consensus for some time now to phase out terminology sections (see this, this and this for relevant discussions). Since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about the series, can you somehow merge the contents of the terminology section into the Plot section, or alternatively, to re-work it into a setting section? That would eliminate excessive fancruft in the article and remove any undue weight for in-universe information. For an example of how this was done, see Shakugan no Shana (it reached GA status after the terminology section was phased out). Maybe you can do the same for Puella Magi Madoka Magica and A Certain Magical Index? The articles can't fulfill their full potential (reaching B or GA-class) until their terminology sections are phased out. Thank you and happy editing! Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea that there was such discussions on the fate of terminology sections, although I had already planned on rewriting most of the Accel World and Guilty Crown articles where this problem is present and bring them up to B-Class for the time being at least as well the ones tied to them, such as their Anime and Character counterparts. It seems to me that amateur Wikipedians throw information into these articles without the knowledge of fancruft. For the time being I have reordered some of the text of Accel World so that I won't be confused about where the information goes and how it should be used when rewriting, the same goes for Guilty Crown. I must also point out that the plots for both are utterly horrendous and some of the information regarding usage of fictional devices is either inappropriate or wrong. For now I'm focusing on these two and have taken everyone's suggestions into consideration from the talk page discussions you referred to although, with the complexity of the plots behind both, pace will be slow but ongoing. ーKirtZJTalk01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:List of Steins;Gate episodes".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please note that per WP:SIG, you are required to have a link to either your user page or your user talk page in your signature. Currently, it is plain text which is not allowed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Signature
You still need to provide a link to your userpage in your signature. It is not allowed to be plaintext.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me join in saying that it would be more collegial for you to have that link so that it is easier for other users to contact you should it be necessary. People can still find you without the link, but it takes extra effort, and that may make people feel put off. JehochmanTalk18:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to the both of you. I never actually noticed since I always use the four tildes at the end of a post, since I knew having my UserName visible is policy. ーKirtZJTalk03:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe the {{for}} is most definitely needed. From 2005 until recently, Karneval was a redirect to the German version of Carnival, with the manga being the article Karneval (manga). I'll agree that without that long-standing redirect, the hatnote would not be needed, but because if it, I think it is. Carolina wren (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Attack on Titan
Hi KirtZJ, the 'List of Attack on Titan episodes' page still has some grammatical issues, and please, allow me to change "loosing" to "losing". The other sentence I edited was previously the following: "Meanwhile, with the evacuation of the citizens completed, Jean, Armin, Sasha and several other soldiers run low on fuel for their maneuvering gears and hence, are unable to escape from the battlefield, while subsequently loosing their morale." This needs to be fixed, my suggestion was "Meanwhile, with the evacuation of the citizens completed, Jean, Armin, Sasha and several other soldiers run low on fuel for their maneuvering gears and subsequently lose morale as they are unable to escape from the battlefield." Could you explain what the issue is, I don't see an issue with tense. Thanks, Andy saigo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Attack_on_Titan_episodes&diff=555871462&oldid=555871022— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy saigo (talk • contribs) 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The irregularity of that sentence would be that the tense wouldn't be right with the changes you propose. The present participle is usually the correct form used in summarizing episodic content on Wikipedia. That's really all there is too it. If you made that change, the entire article would need to be restructured to keep consistency, but again, the tense used would be wrong. "..subsequently lose morale.." is present tense while the adjoining part "..as they are unable to escape.." is the present participle. It doesn't match. Sorry if this seems a bit harsh. Also, HigherFive made the grammatical changes, upon looking at the history.
You recently dropped in: cleanup|reason=Reads more like a guide book than an encyclopedic article.|date=May 2013
I went through and trimmed a bunch of superfluous fluff. Have a look? If you still think the tag is warranted, maybe identify something that you think has a more appropriate level of detail? Tim Bray (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I dropped those in because there is clearly too much detail, such as shown by all of the tables. Remember, Ingress is still a mobile game and not a dynamic mainstream game such as those for home consoles. An example of an initial mobile gaming article would be the Angry Birds (video game). Notice how it has achieved Good Article status since it is mostly prose. So until Ingress can reach some level near this, it doesn't even have to be Good, but something more encyclopedic like Angry Birds, I think the tags should remain.
An example of how to do this would be to convert some if not all the tables to a prose form and use only one or two variables as examples of achieving them such as Portal requirements etc, we really don't need to know all the power levels, just a basic few to give readers the general grasp. I'll leave the article up to you since you seem to be more knowledgable on Ingress than I am. I'd rather people know that Wikipedia isn't a guide book or walkthrough, if you catch my drift. As always, Happy Editing! ーKirtZJTalk21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, did you look? I took out all the tables except for the leveling-up points. Anyhow, I’ll keep trimming and eventually kill the tags when I think it’s clean enough Tim Bray (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I did but I still don't feel the Gameplay section should have so many so sub-sections. If you could merge most of them into a prose form like the Angry Birds article I mentioned that might about do it. KirtZJTalk23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As par your last edit, you said " 11:01, 2 June 2013 DragonZero (talk | contribs) . . (21,002 bytes) (-725) . . (→Episode list: Episode 1 now under 1000 words." When my summaries were already way under your assumed limit, averaging almost 280 words, as I made a point of mentioning in the edit. By also giving reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Putting_it_all_together , that specific summary on the Red Hiding Hood was to show you that it is about the same length as my summaries. What say you?
The anime isn't as simple as you think it is. It's based of off social Psycology which I understand pretty well. How about if I reduce my summaries by a further 2 to 3 lines? Also, use of the words "Misanthropy" and "conscript" are misused in your first summary. Hachiman isn't a misanthropic character, and he was basically forced by Shizuka to join the Service Club as a result of his pragmatic ideal, not conscripted.
I'd rather be precise than have readers assume a less than accurate summary. So again, If i reduce my summaries by 2-3 lines will that be alright with you? I had already started on a major-copy editing of that article if you check the article's history. So listen, I'm not trying to start anything here with logic, because that'll get us no where. I hope you'll take my good faith reasoning into account, since you are obviously more experienced editing on here than me. ーKirtZJTalk20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Misanthropy was what I saw from his behavior. I thought conscript could be used instead of forcefully recruited. I also meant less than 1000 characters. I only plan on editing the first episode to show the kind of concision that should be aimed for. There are too many ignorable events in the other summaries. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 21:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That's okay, I just wanted to let you know that I actually meant no kind of harm by my summaries since I felt kind of antagonized by your reverts, after I had already started working on them. Maybe you should have specified 1000 characters from the start, so I wouldn't misunderstand. I'll go ahead and work on reducing the content.
Misanthropy by wikipedia's definition "..is the general hatred, mistrust or disdain of the human species or human nature." is a bit strong to describe Hachiman. He clearly doesn't hate people, simply a loner. If he did hate people that much he wouldn't help them as he goes out of his way to do in the first place; or he would have to be classed as some type of villain by nature such as the character Iago from Shakespeare's Othello. So I'll try to neaten up the first summary as well, again for a little condensed precision. Anyway, Happy Editing. I'll look forward to your guidance in the future DragonZero-senpai. ーKirtZJTalk21:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Are to be avoided in 99.99% of the cases, per WP:ELNO. I think there even is a bot reverting any additions of links to *.wikia.com too. ー HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 01:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you fine with simply 'Despite this, he eventually fell in love with Masuzu" and 'She eventually fell in love with Eita without actually realizing"? Delta Wings (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That should be fine, although it would be better if you could write it from the LN perspective (if you read them) as I suggested. See how it's done in the Oreimo article. <KirtZJ>Talk23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The devil is a part timer
In our discussion on Talk:The Devil Is a Part-Timer! (before it was deleted), you twice suggested that I read the light novels which form the basis for the manga and the anime. I cannot read Japanese and I am not aware of anyway to obtain the light novels in English. Do you have a suggestion of how to do that? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to try being involved in that discussion? A new and different insight might bring progress there, since the members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga already tried. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 05:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't feel like leaving this unanswered. I don't know much about DBZ to have made much of a difference here. <KirtZJ>Talk16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by "CD track lists it as "Tsuki Hana"? When I checked before I was unable to verify the pronunciation. ー HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 20:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The "Sankaku" e.p. released by Nano Ripe on 22/05/13 lists the romaji as "Tsuki Hana", although the kanji, "月花" translates as "May Flowers" using Google. Not sure if this was intentional or not, but I thought it might have been best to go with the aforementioned. <KirtZJ>Talk20:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm aware that the song was released in the Sankaku EP. I was saying that I didn't find any romaji in any reliable place. That is, not in the EP's booklet, nor on nano.Ripe's offical site or members' blogs, or a retailer.
Good article status states a view must be neutral, with giving due weights to each side
The receptive section is already neutral, you are the one constantly tipping the balance with your disruptive edits. This is the consensus shown by all those who have reverted your edits. <KirtZJ>Talk21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
neutral? atlus has stated his sexual orientation is ambigious, in the entire preceding paragraph suggests kanji is in fact gay, that is an opinion, because there is no concrete evidence as such, if you wish to put a parapgraph in favor of this, there must be another section detailing the neutrality of the accucation, therefore giving fair weight to each side. Either give due weight to each side, or remove the section all together. That is the standard of Wikipedia good article criteria. You cannot remove a section because you don't agree with it
You said it yourself; Atlus stated officially that it was ambiguous hence the neutrality. You're making a non existant case based on opinions and ignoring Atlus' official statement which you yourself quoted above. There's nothing here to debate. T You're trying to make something out of nothing. The consensus by all those who reverted your edits is that it is irrelevant. <KirtZJ>Talk21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Ive only included that secion because that paragraph, AGAIN, suggests that he is gay, which in fact is left ambigious. The fair thing would be to delete the whole secion, but because you have no intention of that, I have no choice but to include information to repute that claim and make it neutral
again, wikipeda good article standards state a view must be Neutral. even without my edit, atlus has stated that is ambigious, but the entire paragraph suggests otherwise, and its contriditary to suggest he is gay and then go on to state his sexual orientation is ambigious
The paragraph to which you are referring is citing a neutral undertone, they are neither confirming nor denying anything. How you fail to see this is beyond me. <KirtZJ>Talk21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
this is the one that gets me ""homosexuals could certainly take issue with the manner in which they are represented".citing that kanji is breaking the boundries for the typical stereotypical gay man
also "comment on homosexuality in a greater Japanese social context," in which "the notion of 'coming out' is seen as undesirable ... as it necessarily involves adopting a confrontational stance against mainstream lifestyles and values. this is irrelevant to kanji and to persona 4
also this is irrelevant and off topic to our current conversation, but does there really need to be any information on his sexual orientation? it seems kinda irrelevant to me..
That is exactly the problem here, reading bits instead of reading the section as a whole. If you did this you would get the neutral undertone. Anyway, I'm not going to debate further.
Also what would you do then? Remove Kanji's sexual orientation altogether like you did in the past? I will not endorse this. Lastly I would appreciate if you sign your posts on my talk page with 4 tildes after you have finished writing a point. <KirtZJ>Talk22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
if you don't wish to debate anymore ill leave your page and let you be. Ill be open to debate on the main persona 4 article page if you ever wish to continue. Thank you for your time
Wonchop made the switch; I neatened up the lead, there wasn't all that much information to begin with since the article is still young. KirtZJTalk02:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Naruto Shippuden Episode List
I don't see how it's unnecessary. The dates are official and people would want to know that there are two episodes on the 29th.
Also if you are not aware of how the title releases work, I'll explain what's going to happen: The title for 329 will be released by August 10th, however we still will *not* have the titles for 327/328 at that point. So what that means is, by August 10th, 327-328 will have to be listed as TBA anyways.
But if you want to wait until 329's title is posted then that's fine. I'm just explaining that those episodes will eventually have to be listed as TBA one way or another.
I am aware how title releases work. Mind you, however it is generally seen on the majority of the episodic lists Wikipedia that if there are no official titles yet released to the media, then these air dates are not to be yet included. If airdates were to be included without Episode Titles then we could potentially expand the episode list to infinite numbers since there will be infinite "airdates" dates or until the anime ends whenever that may be. It is fine to hide the expanded template using the wiki-text < !-- Insert Text Here -- > (without the spaces) if you desire. KirtZJTalk15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)~
It sounds like you don't know about the difference between "double" episode titles and "single" titles. The double title for 327-328 was officially released with the rest of them, but Wiki only uses the single titles. For example you can see the double title in this August schedule posted by Geg http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=932126 - But it's ok, I think you will understand what I mean when the title for 329 is released. 327-328 will have to be listed with no title when that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insane111 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. You're confusing yourself here. I'm talking about why expanding the template with a "TBD" title is not generally done. I told you I completely understand how episode titles work; what you fail to see is all I'm saying is that it is generally against Wikipedia inclusion to put an airdate with a "TBD" title (which you had done) because of the reason I aforementioned; with or without a citation. KirtZJTalk16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
So you understand those dates are official, and those episodes will have to be listed without titles in about 2 weeks. That's all so I'm saying so as long as you understand that it's cool. I'm not arguing that they have to be added *right now*, but they will have to be when 329's title is out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insane111 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
They should have titles in two weeks time making this a particularly irrelevant non issue which you started for some reason. I even gave you a compromise using some wiki-text (scroll back up), if you still want to include your edit. KirtZJTalk16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We never get the titles for double episodes until they actually air, no exceptions. That's why I was asking if you understood how that works. Thanks for the code maybe I'll add it later. Anyways I only started the issue because I saw a lot of people were confused thinking there was no episode on the 29th on a few forums.
Which is why the template in this case can/may only be revealed on the day of airing instead of prior to avoid the "TBD" title. Again, non issue. KirtZJTalk16:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't consider hiding official information and creating confusion a non factor, but you're free to your opinion. How silly is it going to look when 329's title is up there, but 327 and 328's column are invisible to regular viewers?
I thought we settled this? Everything I said is not opinion. You cant claim what I said is opinion after you say something like "I don't consider hiding official information..." There are titles up until 326. When 327-328 airs, the template will be expanded and we can put 329 on the same day that the double episode airs since there will even be a preview showing the official title; hence you get the three episodes added simultaneously on the same day and there will be no irregular break in the numbering scheme. I will go ahead and make the edit using the wiki-text to show you what I mean. Ive made the case, whether or not you agree is irrelevant, because this is the right move. KirtZJTalk17:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I do understand what the wiki text does, it hides the text so only other editors can view it right? The point is 329's title will be released by August 10th, and when that happens everyone is going to want to add it. I think you'll have a much bigger fight on your hands if you try to hide 329's title until 327-328 are out.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insane111 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a fight. For now the template should be left as is hence making this discussion again rather pointless and with that...I'm done here. KirtZJTalk18:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well that's where you seem to have gone off track, we're not taling about "for now", we're talking about the future. As in what happens when 329's title is released. I guess we'll wait and see since this conversation is going nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insane111 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know, and that doesn't justify that it is correct to leave it like that; that method had simply been adopted over time by inexperienced editors on how episode content should be handled and cannot be considered to be constructive. This is a simple matter over one edit and why you felt the need to explode it into this is beyond me; since I do know what I'm doing. KirtZJTalk18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Further proof that VE is the cancer that is killing Wikipedia.--十八02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure no problem. I'll start making a list of the articles as well; the VE devs must have no doubt been informed of the errors by now, since its really becoming something of an annoyance to fix every time. KirtZJTalk20:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Its not implying anything; its quite blunt and straightforward, however please remember that line is only there for documentation purposes. This isn't the first time someone has had an issue with this topic on the P4 article. KirtZJTalk22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
External links
Also simply linking reviews to the EL is not what I have seen on WP:Anime and Manga articles
The Anime & Manga wikiproject is essentially defunct because all the content-producing editors have been driven away by increasingly narrow interpretations and deletionism; what you've seen is not in anyway what ought to be, but mere remnants. What, exactly, would you prefer people to do if not link to reviews? Link them on the talk page? This is utterly futile, as <5% of hand-selected highly relevant links will ever be actually added to articles: it is be linked in EL or not appear at all.
The question is, is it better for a lengthy insightful review for an RS to be linked, or not included at all? Given the moribund editing community, I'm afraid it is simply not a realistic option to demand that each review be carefully parsed and integrated into a Reception section.
Finally, I will again point you at WP:EL, which encourages use of ELs in the body of the article in some fashion but acknowledges that in the absence of infinite editor supply, this will not always happen and that putting RSs into a EL or Further Reading section is perfectly acceptable... --Gwern (contribs) 01:54 28 July 2013 (GMT)
That edit was more than a week ago and you came to bite my head off on my own talk page?. Clearly you took offense from the sentiment in my edit summary and I apologize for it. As for linking reviews...I would imagine that is precisely why a Reception section is included and it doesn't take more than two minutes to scan a review and write one or two lines on it, as shown by my edit. Also, let me explain something that goes far beyond a simple two-lined minor edit on which you have tread upon. I am a part of Wiki-Project Anime and Manga and I am thoroughly offended by you calling it "defunct." (You might probably stop reading around here) The regular editors that are on the project work their best to maintain the quality of the articles and have been discussing numerous times about forming consistency over all the articles in that project; this is especially hard when we have to deal with the inexperiences of IP editors coupled with fan vandalism on a daily basis. I am not here to argue, just to let you know you have offended me in that manner and also by throwing WP:EL in my face since I had already edited in the link in the reception section. You clearly did not take my edits in good faith. KirtZJTalk00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, english is not my mother tongue, but I'll try my best to be super clear, please excuse any language mistakes if they are not tremendously grave or funy (hehe!). Secondly, although this really is a trivial matter, I'd like to explain myself and try to make you understand why what you claim to be true is an error.
Now, let's get to the point, I'm refering to your undoing of my edition at the Gargantia article (Undid revision 570105253 by Folclorcaduco (talk) August 28, 2013 is the correct release date.)
The "Original video animation infobox" stated the following:
"Released August 28, 2013"
The event (release of OVA at august 28, 2013) might be scheduled at this date and will most probably happen, but it hasn't happened yet, now, as "released" implies the event already took place... then the infobox information is wrong.
Would you reconsider to add the question mark i added? Or maybe other solution might be even better, like changing "released" for "scheduled release"... and when the event happens, and only if it happens, then it could be changed back to "released" (this should also be verifiable, wich currently is not... but let's not be too picky? hehe).
Do you even realize how utterly ridiculous you sound right now? That date August 28th, 2013, is coming up in two days why would you remove it and replace it with a question mark. I will go out of my way to explain that what you are trying to do is absolutely pointless; even though it isn't worth my time. Wikipedia cannot contain a "Question Mark" as an official release date, especially when there is an official release date with a citation available, hence making your case lack credibility. In addition, this edit is ridiculously small and again will become obsolete in less than two days. >> KirtZMessage06:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't even mind me, i must stop being a drama queen and a troll, i tend to blow things out of proportion.
Re: Oreimo 2
I feel my comment was well-warranted. You need to take a step back and write a summary not as a fan but as a neutral observer of events. I don't find "Finally realizing that the brother she always wanted was the person standing next to her all this time" to be neutral whatsoever, because that is merely your own interpretation of the scene; in other words, it was not expressly spelled out that this was the case in that particular scene; you are simply adding in the "hidden subtext", and anyone reading it can clearly see that a fan wrote it. Writing like that is unencyclopedic and should be avoided. I would recommend taking a look at WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM if you haven't already.--十八09:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I also apologize for the "fan gushing" comment and insulting you. I guess I could have worded it better, so I'm partially at fault.--十八09:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I just happened upon here and I also wonder, KirtZ, when you will improve on your summaries. It's still written in complete play by play akin to a fan-site; though I am indifferent to it since it's better than nothing and I don't edit those articles. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 05:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That's alright Zero, I know you brought up my summaries in the past; rather than defend myself as having my own writing style, I'd already decided to reduce the amount of characters I use for series that I may start in the next Fall season. So fear not, your words were not unheeded. I'm still searching for that perfect balance in episodic summaries, especially between the number of characters used, noting important details without leaving readers wanting, and reading aesthetic. Some may say such a thing doesn't exist, but I believe it does. Hmm, that sounded pretty deep in retrospect; wasn't really my intention. Also I appreciate the compliment. >> KirtZMessage22:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad someone addressed the maintenance tags. Remember what I sad about the number of pictures. All in all, good work. >> KirtZMessage21:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
''Personas''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.p3m.jp/ticket/ticket07.html|title=全国共通前売券（第2弾特典付き） [|publisher=Persona 3 The Movie Production Committee|language=Japanese|date=September 6, 2013|
Please take note that Crunchyroll isn't a TV station, and it doesn't stream BTOOOM! only in North America; the data in infobox is not accurate. There are many anime series streamed by Crunchyroll that their articles don't list it as a TV network. Is there a consensus to list Crunchyroll as a TV network in infoboxes? Can you provide some examples that another user has added Crunchyroll as a network? Raamin (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear user, you have removed the information I added to the article, in Anime section, for the 2nd time. You could have simply undone this specific edit, but for some reason, have decided to undo all my 4 edits, including the added informations, and a grammatical correction [It began aired] . I don't intend to start an edit war; please correct your last edit. Raamin (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you quite grasp the nature of online digital distribution services. Services such as Crunchyroll, Viz Media's Viz Anime, Neon Alley, Anime Network and Funimation etc are usually the first companies to obtain Japanese media for an English release. This doesn't necessarily mean that the media in question has to be released as an English dub; Funimation, Crunchyroll and Viz Anime all simulcast anime series that they have obtained on their websites on the same day as their premiere in Japan using English subtitles. Now this is where it gets interesting. Listing every single country that these services make their content available too is pointless due to the nature of the internet, whereby any website is accessible from any country using some means. It is best to list the primary country that the media is targeted at being distributed to by these websites, in this case—North America, since they are all based there. The same principle applies to the company Madman Entertainment—an Australian company.
—Now what does this have to do with the |network_en = parameter code. Simple, if the the parameter exists there is no reason it shouldn't be used, again due to to the nature of the internet, the aforementioned companies, Crunchyroll included can technically be listed as channels, since all of them can be viewed on TVs using their own apps. For example Crunchyroll can be accessed on a PS3, same as Neon Alley. So what is the actual difference. The is where it actually becomes a bit of a grey area. They can be left out of the parameter or they can be included. But if they can be included they should be included because there is really no reason not to consider them as TV Networks.
You have removed informations I added previousley to the article with your rollback edit two times, and refused to bring it back after I inforemd you; this is not ok. I am fully aware of the nature of digital distribution; Crunyhroll and Niconico services are not the same as Neon Alley. You claim that your edits is common practice in en.wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Raamin (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Its amazing how you guys go crazy over the smallest of edits. You really need to stop digressing. Now you've accounted yourself for all four of my reverts. It is common practice and allowed because of being a gray area. If you didn't feel like taking the time to read my explanatory response that is NOT my problem; you claim to understand how they work, yet I noticed you left CR under the |network_en = following your edit. >> KirtZMessage21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
What I did, was simply undoing your previous edit, becuase your rollback reverted edits that were not controversial and had no major problems. You can't force me to add something to the infobox which I clearly don't support. You could easily add what you wanted back to the infobox; but decided to revert all my edits. Raamin (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Well then that means this entire discussion was pointless wasn't it? Why didn't you just revert the uncontroversial edits instead of asking me to in the first place and blowing this whole thing out of proportion, Sigh. Forget it. >> KirtZMessage22:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Wanna be the Strongest in the World Manga Cover Volume 1.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BlurredLines04:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A page you started (List of The Devil Is a Part-Timer! episodes) has been reviewed!
Could you tell me why you have RomajiTitle come before KanjiTitle and EnglishTitle the last of the three? And why you use "01", "02", etc.? This is not how the template is suggested to be formatted at all and you make a lot of these episode lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Also why do you label songs without Japanese language titles with "<!-- No Nihongo-->"? And if there is Japanese, you should really put the translated title in the 4th parameter and not the 3rd.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
So the first question was rhetorical right? Anyway I wasn't aware that the template I saved was outdated. So it's not cool to come at me so aggressively. I'll update now thanks. Also, the "No nihongo" is hidden so it isnt hurting anyone, but you have more experience so I'll kill the tags too. >> KirtZMessage09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be rude, but I'm sorry if I came off that way. I just see these odd choices for formatting all over the place and it just doesn't seem helpful when updating stuff like this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem; thanks again for the heads up. I'll get around to fixing the formatting on the pages I'm working on in addition to anywhere else I encounter them. >> KirtZMessage13:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Valvrave's premiere date
Hello. You recently edited the listed date for valvrave's second season's premiere from October 10 to 17. ([1], [2])
Was this an error? I cannot find any reliable sources (or unreliable ones) that support anything other than October 10. ー HigherFive〈Ｃ | Ｔ〉10:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
An anon user had edited the page before myself and changed the date from the initial October 10th and since I myself had been unable to find any good sources I took the edit on good faith. That was an error on my part, it seems as though the official website was updated with the actual airdates which suggest the 10/10/2013 on MBS. Last time I checked that wasnt the case but thanks for pointing it out. >> KirtZMessage10:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you're working on our article for Beyond the Boundary now. Just a quick suggestion: since apparently "youmu" is a made-up term, it would probably be a good idea to define what a youmu is somewhere in the article (obviously not in a Terminology section, probably in the Plot section, even in a single sentence or phrase; alternatively, youmu can be defined under the Youmu subsection of the Characters section). Would that work? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I added the description. Since it seems like borderline Terminology I left it open for anyone to start a talk discussion should it be challenged. —KirtZMessage23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven ManguardWha?15:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..--十八22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on a Yu Narukami sandbox here after checking there was real world information about his role in the series. Things are looking good but by any chance do you know Japanese? I believe one of these interviews has information about his characterization as explained by the staff. I also haven't been able to find comments about his voice actors. If you have the chance, feel free to edit the sanbox. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Those interviews are so short and most of them are incredibly vague with everyone really only declaring their feelings towards the P4 anime adaptation. I found one made by Romi Park when her character's bond with Yu solidified at the end of Episode 17. Unshō Ishizuka and Akemi Kanda made references to the family ties established in Episode 18—but made no reference of Yu and it would be a bit of s stretch (but doable) to cite his induction into their family at the end of the episode. The actual VA Daisuke Namikawa described his simultaneous feelings of "pressure and joy" when he learned of the adaptation but after that, nothing else he says is relevant. The same goes for the production staff including Kishi. There are about three or four interviews with Johnny Young Bosh floating around YouTube though. I found one where he described his voice work for the game and the anime and his own feelings towards both — So a citation could be created around it. —KirtZMessage20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, I just noticed there were three directors' interviews. I only clicked the first one while going down the list. My bad. The second one is the only one that matters. I extracted what was relevant and included it in the sandbox. —KirtZMessage03:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to it in a bit. Also, did you consider adding a screenshot (perhaps from the anime) depicting Yu and Izanagi in a single frame? —KirtZMessage10:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you uploaded this picture taken by someone who uploaded it on flickr. It may be a free-use image (Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr). I am not familiar with flickr but I believe this image is public domain. If you will, I suggest setting it up on commons. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I'll get to it in a bit. —KirtZMessage
The image seems to be copyrighted with "All Rights Reserved" so I don't think it meets the requirements of Commons, which is a bit unfortunate. —KirtZMessage00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Log Horizon
I see that you undid my revision with the comment of "irrelevant bloating." I do not see why those details are not relevant. While the world of Log Horizon focuses on the Japanese server, it is a worldwide game. If I understand correctly, one of the side stories is set on a different country server, which reinforces the point that it is a worldwide universe. MagicianLord (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I also fixed a lot of grammatical issues (obvious errors like plural words that should have been singular). What about sticking to the revision and then paring it down? Compare my revision with the orig. and you'll see what I mean; thanks Keron Cyst (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there are obvious grammatical errors that your reversion brought back: the current version reads "... the memories... is overloading his Reading Steiner." "Is" should be "are." Additionally, try reading this last part of one of the current plot's sentences aloud: "... as well as prevent a future ruled by SERN due to the invention of a time machine no longer exists." By the way, WP:PLOTSUM says nothing about requiring use of last names, and the current plot uses first names for characters other than Okabe, which is inconsistent. These are among other things I was aiming to improve, so I would appreciate my edit being allowed. Thanks - Keron Cyst (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I used this revision as reference. Plot summaries should be as concise and accessible as possible, which is why the current revision is set, though it also has issues. Keron's edits are bordering fancruft and introduces unnecessary detail (grudgingly accepting his wish instead of the current revision's "accept his wish") ("which led him to take on his 'mad scientist' persona to emotionally protect Mayuri"), and jargon ("which has a divergence difference of .000001%."). Keron is right about about the grammar issues though. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 01:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean, though that "jargon" is directly plot-related, by the way! But now that I know what "fancruft" means, I see that those sorts of details should be reserved for the actual fan Wikia. I'll see about doing a take two and tapering down the edit to the necessary stuff. Thanks for reviewing the edit history - Keron Cyst (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Persona 3
How about in the trailer of Persona Q then? He is clearly named as Minato Arisato, and the Protagonist of Persona 4 is also named Yu Narukami. But okay, I won't change it again unless if there's official sequel of Persona 3 or Persona 4 game like Persona 4 Arena or such is published with official name for the Protagonist of Persona 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.46.242 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As I've explained, the use of Minato Arisato in PQ was Atlus' attempt at fan servicing the Japanese audience of the P3 series since they had been referring to the Protagonist by that name.
You seem to think Yu Narukami is used across the board. He is called Sōji Seta in the P4 manga and by another name entirely in the P4 stage production. Your reasoning also suggests that despite the name's notability, we should change Yu Narukami to "Protagonist" because he isnt called Yu other than in the anime and two video game spin-offs. (See WP:NOTE). Enough information exists for Persona 3's Protagonist to warrant its own article in which he would be called either Makoto Yuki or Minato Arisato due to the notability acquired by both names—but least likely Minato Arisato and not likely Sakuya Shiomi in that order. (See WP:NRVE) —KirtZMessage09:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Accel World. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
