User talk:Ryulong/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

GITS

Stop edit warring, you are drastically altering changes and I do not consent to them, the matter is at DRN! You wanted no changes from me, you should not change them yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The DRN is going nowhere. I am giving up on it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See my talk page. Let's discuss this ourselves if DRN is ending. We can compromise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to compromise because you want there to be a Ghost in the Shell (manga) again as far as I can tell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromises

You're compromising too much just to find middle ground. And Chris knows if you continue to budge there would be no difference between "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters". That's why he preffers arguing with you than me. I don't agree we should summarize the plots (or at least the plot to the first manga) in the main article as it has been adapted in theatrical film and TV film (Solid State Society). List of Ghost in the Shell chapters is just a child list-article, so probably best to not add so much detail of censorship. (Also, it may have been noted but not significant to have its own section. It censored in its initial release 2 pages, then added back in the 2nd edition. Nothing major).Lucia Black (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The extensive publication information fills up too much crap on the main article. The plot should go with the lists of chapters (they have a parameter for it in the template). I'm keeping reception, production, and censorship on the main article. I've put Ghost in the Shell exactly where I think it should be at this stage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but those parameters are better suited for summary, not extensive plot and longer on-goiing series such as Naruto or Bleach. The original should at least be covered in detail in the main article. Publication History is key aspect of the manga. Example: Ghost in the Shell 1.5 chapters originally ran in Young Magazine as "Ghost in the Shell 2" but were delayed to be released so they can be released later as "Ghost in the Shell 1.5" simply adding their first release dates doesn't really help (especially Ghost in the shell 2 that has three versions). And again, idk who, but someone made a bad set up with "Publication History" as someone added the unrelated box set of posters and 3D papercraft book. So the reason why it looks huge and unreadable is the fact that it has an additional fourth paragraph completely unrelated to the publication history of the manga. Remember, its a list and a child article, so that info still has to reflect in the main article. And unlike episode lists, this list-article isn't made due to size issues.Lucia Black (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm treating it as an episode list so the main article doesn't get bogged down with the details of every single scene. The other books don't need to be mentioned in much detail, you're right, but we do not need to give all that level of detail on the main article when just the publication dates of the original manga are needed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But you can't treat this like an episode list, a normal episode list would be 6 to 8 times longer. Publication history is long for a reason. And its a bit exagerrated to say every single scene (although I agree with 1.5, but gits2 and gits1 were properly summarized). If you read the manga, the first and the last three chapters played were relevant to the main plot. The rest were side stories. Mentioning the three versions of GITS2 is simple too. "Extended version" ran in Young Magazine, "Short cut" version released in limited edition box, and "standard" (the last one) is well...the standard edition.

Plot and publication history are relevant to the main article. Yes, its a lot of info, but not enough to merit a list article. Chris is going to use that to split the manga info. If production and reception (yes I know, censorship, but again, not that significant.) I think a few extra info can be added to Publication (not a lot) and bring full story of the original manga (the main plot).Lucia Black (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But the main article doesn't need all of the publication history. Look at Sailor Moon#Manga. That's all the information on publication they have with a longer section at the list of chapters. I've expanded the plot summary on the main article, but I don't know enough about the MANMACHINE INTERFACE or HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSER books to write anything more detailed than the two senteces as they are now. I will not agree to Chris's form of the two page system because it just does not make sense and is not featured in any other anime article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well probably not republications such as Kodansha USA, but noting the alternate versions is important for at least gits2. And probably noting what makes each one different isn't that important either.

Git2 all takes place in the same day and each chapter at a different time (2:00pm, 4:00pm etc.). Oddly, the prologue and epilogue are before all the other chapters and explain where motoko's evolution has reached. So Gits2 main plot could be first and last chapter. Gits1.5 is about section 9 without Motoko and the new tongue and cheek humorous section 9 member Azuma and a little bit on Proto. However Gits1.5 has no specific plot.Lucia Black (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Really not that important but just fix what I have now because arguing with Chris is getting nowhere. But at least follow the examples of Sailor Moon and other articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we have no choice than to take it to mediation.Lucia Black (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He's the only one not allowing for a consensus or compromise though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't want mediation, then that means he's willing to give up. Or at least showing sign of defeat.Lucia Black (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

The article is a train wreck, it is so jumbled, distorted and chaotic that it doesn't even detail Shirow's work more so then Oshii's. Its not even balanced or fair in any of its portrayals. Lucia has also been adding false information about the Puppetmaster to the other article, I know everyone's intention is to improve the article, but there are serious content issues that are present and need to be addressed. This may be a content dispute, but right now it needs to be tagged appropriately or corrected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about the original manga. Your dispute with Lucia is getting too out of hand. WP:UNDUE is not for your complaints about the scope of the article. I don't care what she's doing with the Puppet Master. All I care about is you constantly disrupting things because you are not getting your way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Step back, relax and breathe Ryulong. You are too emotionally involved and you are not considering the content as it is. The information is wrong, and you have been tag-teaming to change despite numerous editors disagreeing. Discuss policy and guidelines later, but the outright false insertion of information has to be addressed. You may not care about it, but I do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you explained what on the article was wrong then maybe it can be fixed. And there's been no tag-teaming. I made a bold edit that you and Niemti seemed to agree on when I first did it in March but because of your constant bickering with Lucia, you decided to violate WP:POINT by reverting everything repeatedly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Its undue in many forms, from reviews to story to factually accurate background and Oshii film non-canon works, it marginalizes the major works. Honestly, there is so much wrong with the views alone that UNDUE is valid, but factual accuracy is also a big one. This was the original franchise, yes, and it should have existed in its pre-dispute form, but when you combine Oshii's work and run it as the manga you really have a messed up article. It doesn't even cover the plot of the manga in any meaningful form. I will not write an essay about it, but the tag was fair. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's only undue because you refuse to accept that the scope of the article should be the manga. Maybe if you actually told me what was wrong with the article I could fucking fix it. What aspects of Oshii's work are included in the prose about the manga? You just list off these complaints and expect me to know what's wrong with it without telling me what is the correct thing. You just continue to fucking argue with Lucia all the damn time and refuse to acknowledge any of the points I've attempt to made. I've made concessions while attempting to still keep true to my vision of the page but you continue to refuse to accept them because it's not a franchise page. If you know what's factually wrong with the article, fix it yourself. But if you at any point change the article from it's manga scope to your preferred "franchise scope" (which should not exist because all of the discussion of the work of fiction is as its individual parts and no one considers it a franchise other than whoever originally drafted the page ages ago and yourself) I will revert it. Holy cow it's not that hard.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Differences aside, we need to work together! Here's to cooperation in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

TAR 22 Title Problem Follow Up

First of all, I apologize the do not see the guidelines on the top at first. Plus I'm a newbie editor, so I'm still learning how to use the editing tools and the signature.

Extended content

Then, this is a completely BS. Sorry for my language. Do you understand what does a constituent country mean? Constituent country is a term sometimes used in contexts in which a country makes up a part of a larger political entity, such as a sovereign state. (Constituent country) For example: Leg 1 (United States → French Polynesia, France) Los Angeles (Los Angeles International Airport) to Motu Mute, Bora Bora, French Polynesia , France (Bora Bora Airport) (TAR 22) "In 2004, the French overseas collectivity of French Polynesia was legally designated as a pays d'outre-mer au sein de la République, translated as an 'overseas country inside the Republic'." (Constituent country) French Polynesia is a constituent country of France, so there's not point to name the title as France instead of French Polynesia. Leg 10 (Germany → Scotland, UK) Berlin (Berlin Tegel Airport) to Edinburgh, Scotland , United Kingdom (Edinburgh Airport) (TAR 22) Even though in Leg 10, the editors will italic the word United Kingdom and put Scotland in front of the UK. The reason behind this is to specify which country they are going to. The show had specified that the teams are going to Scotland but NOT United Kingdom, same as Northern Ireland and England in this season. In the Family Edition aka TAR 8, the editors have specified the states that the teams visited but not simply put United States into the title of every leg. Leg 1 (New York → New Jersey → Pennsylvania) Leg 2 (Pennsylvania → Washington, D.C. → Virginia) Leg 3 (Virginia → South Carolina → Alabama) Leg 4 (Alabama → Mississippi → Louisiana) Leg 5 (Louisiana → Panama) Leg 7 (Costa Rica → Arizona) Leg 8 (Arizona) Leg 9 (Arizona → Utah) Leg 10 (Utah → Wyoming → Montana) (TAR 8)

P.S. You are not the only editor responsible for this page nor you own this page, so don't think you have absolute right and others are wrong. Consider the comments and suggestions from other editors and TAR fans. I'm here because I am trying to make the page better since I'm a die-hard TAR fan, but not because I have too much time and spend some to argue with you here. I'm just trying to stand my point here. Please do not get offended. Have a good day.—RiceEater93 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Family Edition was unique because they pretty much only went around the United States, until some trips to the Caribbean and Canada. So we do not need to mention the US in each of those. I told you multiple times that the issue with the final leg of the most recent season is because they went from Northern Ireland, to one stop in England, and then back to the United States. It is much simpler to just have "United Kingdom --> United States" for this section header, rather than "Northern Ireland, UK --> England, UK --> United States" because the stop in England was minimal but still existent. It was not the focus of the leg and the only reason they had the teams go to London was because it seems there aren't any flights from Belfast to Dulles. Stop preaching at me as to what you think should be done on the article. It is because of me that we even mention the constituent countries or semi-autonomous regions of these various places rather than Hong Kong legs simply being labeled as "China" as they were previously. The italic format was also my idea because French Polynesia is just a territory of France and not an independent nation in any fashion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime airdates

So I'm planning to start an RfC on this matter so that a proper consensus can be reached. Is this a good idea? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Listen to Juhachi.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Eliminated contestants per seasons in reality show articles

Since you removed the eliminated contestants in all seasons of Hell's Kitchen and MasterChef, the consistency is for winners and runner-ups in the table. I removed all of the contestants who'd eliminated in all cycles (seasons) of America's Next Top Model on the central page of the table and they're not really needed to encyclopedic. They can be found in all of the cycle's articles. [1] See, GTPMF (talk · contribs) returned the old format and not really verifiable. I guess I'll revert it and I'll remove them to all of other Top Model franchises worldwide. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		For your excellent defense of rationalism in the AfD discussion for the Ryukyu Province article.[2]. Victory for historical authenticity was had due to your strong and uncompromising effort driving at the truth.

Jun Kayama 13:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryūkyū Province Comment

Thanks for dealing with Ryūkyū Province, I didn't even notice this was going on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On reverted Talk page edits

I’m sorry if I caused offense by moving your comment on Talk:Dragon Ball closer to the comment to which it was replying. I did that because it was confusing, and possibly somewhat misleading, to have it positioned as a reply to a later comment that had nothing to do with the contested RfC. I presume that’s also the reason that User:ChrisGualtieri hid it along with his reply. Since you objected to both of these actions, I’ve simply changed the indentation to make it clearer what was being replied to, which should hopefully both be innocuous enough for you and prevent possible confusion. —Frungi (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No. He hid it because he didn't like what I said.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. Please. It makes everyone happier. —Frungi (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)