Talk:Central Park Media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-class on the assessment scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject New York City  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives of Central Park Media official website[edit]

The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org concluded that archived official pages of defunct companies should be discussed on their own merits. I propose that the archives of the Central Park Media website be included in the external links section and/or the infobox section of this article. To link to the official website this way is unavoidable since CPM is a defunct company, and the live domain is no more. The listing of archives is located here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.centralparkmedia.com/ - I will use the WP:EL guidelines on "What to link":

  • "Is the site content accessible to the reader?" - Multiple versions of the website have almost all of their content and images available: December 24, 1996 - February 2, 2001 - March 25, 2004
  • "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" - The official website is a good factual reference for the company as a whole - The archives list what series the company published. The archives include trailers to some of the series the company had. In other words material published by CPM that would be of interest to a person wanting to learn more about the company.
  • "Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?" - Web.archive.org only removed links on request from other parties, and there is no indication that any remnants of CPM would want its archives purged.
  • In general "Official links" are included in "What Should Be Linked" and are described here: Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links - While CPM no longer exists, and CPM has no control over what it used to control, Web.archive.org does not purposefully alter the content that had been archived.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the ridiculously lengthy discussion at WP:EL[1] and on my talk page, I continue to strongly oppose this ridiculous suggestion of putting an archive link to a former company's former website in the EL section. It completely fails ALL aspects of WP:EL, despite the attempted arguments above. It is not an official site, it is a snapshot copy of an old version of the site. It is not functional as the original site, it is NOT the official site at all, and it is not an appropriate inclusion. The discussion at WP:EL seems to agree, so of course it has moved back here to try yet again. Seriously, how many more no's will it take before this ends? Archive links - fine for use as reliable sources. Archive links as an EL for a claimed official link or even an archive of an official link - no. It does not add any value to the article and only looks silly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The talk page discussion above concluded that each archived link should be considered individually on whether it should be included or not, and that there is no blanket prohibition on the inclusion of such links. So I think the discussion should consider the merit or lack of merit of this particular link. As for the idea that the Central Park Media link " completely fails ALL aspects of WP:EL," I explained why it passes each point of "What to link" and in a portion of "What Should Be Linked." AnmaFinotera, does your revision at "16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)" on Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_23#Linking_to_archive the page summarize your views on official pages? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you explained why you "think" it has merit, and your arguments are piecemeal grabs from EL to try to support the idea without showing why it actually is a valid link. It is NOT the official link, period. It is an archive, with no redemptive value. I've already given my summary of archive links of ANY site in EL, not just the official one. Again, I wholescale reject the idea and that is that. Will now wait for others to chime in and will not be replying anymore to you specifically as I feel we have already said all that can be said a dozen times already and its both boring and annoying to continue repeating the same circle over and over. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed the March 25, 2004 archive. About half the links were functional, the highly touted 10MB catalog was missing, and the prices and order links were obviously useless. On one page, the full DVD catalog listing was missing, but the "new releases" page was there. Overall, I found it very frustrating and it wasn't at all clear what information was still useful for a reader today beyond what's in the main article or the List of Central Park Media releases. I don't doubt that there is something useful on the site, but finding it is painful. What about adding a reference for each section under "Divisions" with a direct link to a useful page for that division from the archive? UncleDouggie (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: List of Central Park Media releases no longer exists as there is a consensus in the Anime and Manga WikiProject to not have these lists. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
There is, however, a category that appropriately only includes titles that are actual notable enough to have articles. The ANN link also gives the full list for those interested in seeing every title.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1996 and 2001 archives work much better, apparently. I guess the later archives don't work as well as the newer archives. Anyway, the Divisions section needs to be referenced, so that sounds like a great idea.
As for the 2004 website. So far the catalog is saying "data retrieval failure" which seems to be an error with the web.archive.org system. If it says "not in archive" then it wouldn't be there. From the homepage the links in the upper left and upper right areas work. The VHS order forms (the main page and the individual files) work. Subtitled Super Sellers does not work. Tai Seng and Narue work while Sputnik7 does not. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The site says: "Failed Connection: The server that the particular piece of information lives on is down. Generally these clear up within two weeks." I guess when you have years on your hands, what's a few more weeks? Going back to 1996 or 2001 for a site that died in 2009 seems like a long stretch to me. I don't see how it can be representative of what was on the official site before its demise. The older editions probably work better because there was less server dependent dynamic content back then. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's another problem. The link you added for Asia Pulp Cinema shows as a white screen with a small sidebar in Firefox & Safari. In Safari, the icons on the main screen suddenly appear out of nowhere when you mouse over them and they are linked to something. In Firefox, the icons don't show but you can click the white on white links. I'm sure this is because the 2004 site was designed for some old non-standards compliant version of IE. But the result is that the link isn't functional for most users. On the US Manga Corps link, only the "new releases" link works, so why not link directly to that? UncleDouggie (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long server errors on Internet Archive last, but I'm sure the actual status of the particular page (whether it was archived or not) was visible at some point before the server failure happened.
The last revision available of the Central Park Media homepage is April 8, 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20080408133601/http://www.centralparkmedia.com/index.html - In this revision, I looked at the following immediate links:
These links to the left (US Manga Corps, Software Sculptors, Asia Pulp Cinema, Central Park Media, CPM Press, Mangamania Storefront, Retailer Info, Anime Archives, Contact Us) work.
The home page for Anime Cafe PSP and Anime Cafe Ipod work
Tai Seng works
Home page of CPM DigiPress works
The Anime Zone and CPM Press catalogs have not been archived, so they don't work
Also at least some of the recent (circa 2008) online media works: http://web.archive.org/web/20080414091939/www.centralparkmedia.com/cpmpress/online/angelshop1.html
As for the US Manga Corps I'll switch the citation to the New Releases link - EDIT:Done
The sidebar on the Asia Pulp Cinema citation is workable, while the main page doesn't appear to be functional. It's not totally useless since, in Firefox at least, one can see the sidebar.
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is a valid use for archived links in this instance. As proven above, there is much content still available. Plus if a link to the wayback's index is used, it shows any interested readers the company's online development over the years.
On a general note, as an example, If Microsoft were to go bankrupt, it would not be helpful to eradicate all links to their website. Rather, we would make an effort to ascertain what was available through the archive. We don't discard primary source material simply because it is no longer in it's original location. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this was a company, it is part of WikiProject Companies, and since this was based out of New York City, it is a part of WikiProject New York City. I will notify both WikiProjects of this debate (Anime/Manga has already been notified) - I will use the same message used in the Anime/Manga project. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I notified WP:NYC - AnmaFinotera already notified the Companies WikiProject here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#Archive_Link_in_EL_at_Central_Park_Media WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there seems to be no consensus with the responses on this page evenly divided between support or oppose, would an RFC be a good idea? (I am aware other people made general comments regarding archived official links, supporting and opposing, on WP:EL) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should archived official website be listed in external links section?[edit]

Central Park Media is a defunct company. Should the official website, no longer available at its original location but archived on web.archive.org, be listed in the external links section? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As per above, I am in favor of archiving official websites WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, per my observations above. Applicable functioning links may be included in citations where needed. Note that there has been extensive discussion on this general subject so we don't need to repeat all that here. UncleDouggie (talk)
Comment: If there are no further responses, then there would be no consensus. Assuming that there are no further responses, since all of the users above and another user who expressed support in favor of including the external link have participated in the discussions above, then this RfC would be inconclusive. I guess we would do nothing and wait maybe six months before bringing up the issue again... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Software Sculptors[edit]

Here's a ref, containing an interview with Software Sculptors before they were part of CPM, apparently, which mentions the citation-needed claims: http://web.archive.org/web/20060325071434/www.nt2099.com/OSA/PUBLICATIONS/nt2099/NT2099C.WRI

Dunno whether that counts as a RS for y'all... --Gwern (contribs) 02:10 22 November 2009 (GMT)

"Blame Piracy Rant"[edit]

No links or reporting about the last owner of CPM going nuts in an open letter blaming piracy for his company, and Japanimation in general, declines? Sierraoffline444 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any form CPM, though there was one from Bang Zoom's CEO last week. —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Got a link to the rant? I'd like to read it myself. - Areaseven (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)