User talk:Ryulong

	My local time: August 2024 27 Tuesday 1:10 am EST
Archives
	2—6/06; 7/06; 8/06; 9/06; 10/06; 11/06; 12/06; 1/07; 2/07; 3/07; 4/07; 5/07; 6/07; 7/07; 8/07; 9/07; 10/07; 11/07; 12/07; 1/08; 2/08; 3/08; 4/08; 5/08; 6/08; 7/08; 8/08; 9/08; 10/08; 11/08; 12/08; 1/09; 2/09; 3/09; 4/09; 5/09; 6/09; 7/09; 8/09; 9/09; 10/09; 11/09; 12/09; 1/10; 2/10; 3/10; 4/10; 5/10; 6/10; 7/10; 8/10; 9/10; 10/10; 11/10; 12/10; 1/11; 2/11; 3/11; 4/11; 5/11; 6/11; 7/11; 8/11; 9/11; 10/11; 11/11; 12/11; 1/12; 2/12; 3/12; 4/12; 5/12; 6/12; 7/12; 8/12; 9/12; 10/12; 11/12; 12/12; 1/13; 2/13; 3/13; 4/13; 5/13; 6/13; 7/13; 8/13; 9/13; 10/13; 11/13; 12/13; 1/14; 2/14; 3/14; 4/14; 5/14; 6/14; 7/14; 8/14; 9/14; 10/14; 11/14; 12/14; 1/15;

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.

Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.

I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.

I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

JoJo chapter lists

Hi,

First off, I'd like to say I appreciate the fact you didn't summarily revert my edits to those three articles, as I was half-expecting that to happen, based on our previous interactions, and that would have been quite frustrating considering the time I spent going over it all and trying to fix every little detail (on top of some work on typos in the transliterations and attempts to stick to the exact punctuation marks used in the Japanese volumes, there actually is a fair number of subtle corrections, such as "二組の指輪" -> "一組の指輪", "英雄として眠る" -> "英雄として瞑る", "遥かな国からの３人" -> "遙かな国からの３人", "血時計の戦い" -> "血時計の闘い", a bunch of "最後" -> "最期", etc).

That being said (and as you'd probably expect ^^), I'm going to disagree about the "の巻" not being part of those titles. I naturally realize those don't carry any meaning plot-wise (obviously, I'm not petitioning for those to be translated either! ^^) and are more of a sign of the times (a lot of Jump series used that format for titles back then), but they're still part of the titles. They're on the covers, under the covers, on the volume title pages, in the table of contents, on the episode title pages, and in the credits at the end of the volume. Google shows they're included more often than not when an "old" episode title is mentioned ("with" and "without"... note also how a lot of hits seem derived from our Wikipedia lists, for the latter), this Japanese wikia follows suit, and the same format can be found in related media (for instance...). While Araki eventually stopped using that format (during Part 3 for the episode titles and after Part 5 for the volumes titles, if I remember well), it still is the one that's used at the beginning of the series for the regular/original release. It seems to me that changing that results in a less-than-accurate list, which, as you've probably gathered by now, is something I'm trying to avoid.

As for the episode titles used in recent collections (the colorized one, as was pointed out, but also the more recent JoJonium release, apparently), I have to say I was of two minds regarding those... Those lists are about the volumes of the regular/original edition (release dates, ISBN, etc), after all, and it seems a bit out of place to insert information relating to other collections in there (although that's significantly easier to do in this case than when authors drastically change the structure of their work... I can't imagine the mess if one tried to do that for Nagai's titles, for example). On the other hand, I guess I can see the value in listing the new titles if only because they seem to be used across several new collections and might also be referenced for other recent related media (such as the TV series). I hope you'll agree with my compromise: listing the original titles first, and using columns to try and avoid cluttering the article.

Something I can't quite agree with is the decision to list the serialization titles in the JoJolion article. For starters, can you imagine applying that to earlier series? Even if we managed to find out what all those titles were, would it really be such a good idea to clutter the articles further (shall we add a third column? ^^;;), especially for titles that could only be found on material that is completely out of print and, in several cases, downright retconned (for example, JoJolion already has a few instances of altered Stand names, and as you or may not know, the first instance of such a change actually was... "Star Platinum", originally referred to as "Star Silver" in the serialization)? Many series change things around when collected volumes are released, by changing episode titles, reordering episodes, merging or dividing them, and keeping track of all this seems to me like a largely futile endeavor (even potentially counter-productive, if you value legibility), generally not undertaken by similar Wikipedia articles and better left to hardcore fan sites...

Sorry for the long post, but I intend to also go over Parts 4 to 8 at some point, and I was thinking it might be preferable to try and discuss it a bit with you instead of fighting after the fact. Now, we can fight beforehand, which obviously is a million times better! ^^

PS: Personally, I checked the new titles by working from the previews for JoJonium, but that's only good for Part 1 at the moment... Do you know of a similar way to check the table of contents of the colorized volumes? If you're the one who listed those in the first place, how did you do it? Did you simply buy them? Erigu (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

の巻 just means "Chapter" so it doesn't serve much of a purpose in the title.

And I only have been listing the serialization titles for JoJolion because they come out first and are later changed in the collections months later. However, this fansite has the serialization titles, at least for SBR and JoJolion (it's where I go to easily copy the Japanese text for the newest JoJolion chapter title). I think he's only really been doing this shit with SBR and JoJolion, if only because they have been most recent and they're what people have the most info on.

This website has all of the titles, old and new (original run, colorized run, remix run, stone ocean, sbr, part 8).

Anyway, I am pretty sure I used a Shueisha site when I updated the old titles to the new ones but I can't seem to find it at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It may not serve much of a purpose, but it's still part of the title. The purpose would be accuracy. ;þ

Yeah, episode titles often change when the volumes are released. I still don't think serialization titles have much of a place in a volume list (outside of the "not compiled in volumes yet" section, of course)... Plus, like said above, we'd run out of extra columns pretty fast, at that rate. ^^

I also looked around a bit for a Shueisha site earlier but didn't find anything. Maybe I just missed it. I'll try again later... Thanks anyway! Erigu (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't matter in the long run though.

And there's no telling what chapters outside of SBR and JoJolion were called in the magazines if anything. We have that information. May as well use it.

And I think you can use the Xrea site for that information. Also I found the alt titles from last time in Docomo's online store which I previously accessed when adding the information in the first place. Do a google search with the Japanese titles for the newer versions and view the google cache because it won't let you go through it normally anymore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's a matter of accuracy. And they're still there when you buy the volumes, whereas the serialization titles have gone the way of the dodo. :þ

I may regret this, but the site I linked you to earlier when we were discussing Deadman's Questions has a whole bunch of pre-Steel Ball Run serialization titles, going back to Part 5. Also, I believe I have most Jump issues for Part 5 and the end of Part 4, but I'd have to figure out where I put them exactly, and er... Still don't think serialization titles should be added to a volume list!

Thanks for the tip regarding the episode lists, I'll try that. Erigu (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better still. Erigu (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's accurate. If it's part of every single chapter title it's trivial to include it when it just means "Chapter". And has everything you need.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if it's accurate"? Huh. And not every single: Araki drops it at some point. :þ

Sorry, I'm not sure why you linked me to that site (which agrees with me regarding the "no maki" *cough* ^^)? Is it because of the episode list for the bunko edition? The thing that bothers me with some of those listings is that they lack furigana... Ah, well.

Anyway, now that I've given you the serialization titles for... well, the entire series (? I believe?), what are you going to do with them? ^^;; Erigu (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Adding "の巻" to the end of every chapter title until Araki changed to the current format is unnecessary. And I'm not doing shit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, I tried to be as agreeable as I could, here. Perhaps you could find better ways to respond than those terse sentences and other "whatever"s.

And if you're not going to do anything about earlier serialization titles (you're welcome for those links, by the way), does that mean we agree that the JoJolion ones are unnecessary (except for the episodes not compiled into volumes yet, naturally)? Erigu (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.

And no. I simply have no interest in adding the serialization titles for things prior to Jojolion, but I will continue to list both for JoJolion as the volumes are released as it seems pointless to have one title for five month stretches and then suddenly change it when the new volume comes out.

And you should really stop confusing the terms "episode" and "chapter". I think we're done here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, does your first "no" refer to my remark regarding your tone? Seriously?

The point is to simply list the titles used in the volumes in the "table of contents" section of the volume list. It isn't exactly common practice to also keep "old", serialization titles in such articles.

I'm not confusing anything regarding the terms "episode" and "chapter". An "episode" is a separate part of a serialized work. The term has my personal preference over "chapter" (which doesn't tell us we're dealing with separate installments of a serialized work at all). I know Wikipedia prefers the term "chapter" when dealing with manga episodes (for some reason) and while I disagree, it's not like I was trying to edit "episode" into those articles or anything like that, here, so your remark seems somewhat gratuitous (although sadly in line with your overall tone).

Again, I tried to be as agreeable as I could, in this discussion, but I'm clearly not getting the same courtesy back. And at this point, I'm thinking that if you care so little about my opinion and arguments, why should I go along with your perceived notion that you own those articles and that all edits should get your personal approval? It apparently is common practice for Wikipedia volume lists to include the "no maki" for old Jump series like the original JoJo's Bizarre Adventure run, and it is not common practice to keep serialization titles on top of the titles used in the compiled volumes (nor to list titles used in other collections than the one referenced by the list, in fact, even if I was willing to compromise about that one). So I will go with that. Naturally, you are free to try and convince the anime and manga project that common practice is wrong. Erigu (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's ever been a precedent where chapter titles change between serialization in the weekly or monthly magazines to the tankobon volumes. And simply because other pages do it does not mean it's a stellar idea to do it on another set of pages. Adding "no maki" to the end of every single title for Parts 1 and 2 and the first volume of part 3 is entirely unnecessary. And the fact that there are so many sets of titles means that we should be providing the proper level of information for people who may not have read the original publications but the subsequent reprints.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(thank you for the more collected reply)

I'm surprised you've never heard of titles changing between the serialization and the compiled volumes outside of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. It really isn't that uncommon.

For the "no maki", as explained above, I'd say it's about listing the titles and tables of contents as they are, about accuracy. Which, I would argue (and many would concur, judging from similar Wikipedia articles and the sites that have been linked to during this conversation), does matter. In other occasions, I believe you vocally agree with this position, even when others would deem the issue frivolous ("L"/"R" debates, for example?).

As for the more recent set of titles, I've told you what I think about it in my first post: I'm not too fond of supplementary information relating to other collections finding its way in a table that clearly purports to be about the regular release (in fact, I can't say I have seen many such Wikipedia lists addressing different Japanese editions, especially not in detail), but on the other hand, I can see the value of such information. As long as the presence of the second set of titles is properly explained and doesn't overly complicate/clutter the lists (which obviously is a bit of a subjective matter), I'm personally okay with it. For the anecdote, I've been editing this article for some time now, and whenever I see those "story date" columns... On one hand, some kind of timetable/chronology to complement the summary can be helpful (hell, it helped me on several occasions), and I'm sure it took the editor(s?) behind this a considerable amount of work, but on the other... well, on top of not being common practice at all and taking up a considerable amount of space both in the table and in the notes, good luck doing that past volume 9. It also reminds me of more innocent times, when such articles also used to list the names of the characters pictured on the covers, until people apparently agreed that that was going well beyond the call of duty... Erigu (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "no Maki" appellation is simply unnecessary if 9 volumes include the same thing in the title. And the newer styled titles in the color and remix editions appear to be becoming more well known. All I am aware of is that the anime team used those chapter titles to pull the episode titles for rather than the original forms, which is why I had made the switch in the first place. And, again, I have no interest in adding the serialized chapter titles to any articles other than JoJolion because it is currently being published and it does not make sense to completely disavow any previous titles the chapters may have had simply because they were put into a volume. I am really done discussing this with you because I've nothing else to state on this matter. If you remove any of this information I will have something to say about it, but until then I think we are done here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You say "unnecessary", I say "accurate"... It's always the same song, isn't it? Although I believe it can be argued my point is the less subjective one. ^^

Like I said, I can see the value of those new titles (I also mentioned the TV series above: "they seem to be used across several new collections and might also be referenced for other recent related media (such as the TV series)"). That being said, if by "more well known", you mean "more well known than the "old" titles", I don't know that I'd go that far. It's not like those recent collections have replaced the regular one in any way, for instance.

Your reasoning for keeping the serialization titles for JoJolion makes no sense to me. If you're not interested in specifying the serialization titles in the articles for the previous parts (or other series, as, once again, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure isn't an isolated case at all), isn't it inconsistent and arbitrary to do so there? Aren't you "completely disavowing" (as you put it) those titles when you ignore them for Parts 1 to 7?

And yes, I do intend to remove those serialization titles. Erigu (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I have no interest in putting in the effort of adding the information for Parts 1 to 7 (or whatever you found was available) does not mean that they should be removed from Part 8 and if you do remove them I will revert you. Have a nice day because I've nothing left to say on this topic to you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Neapolitan"

Let's ignore for a moment and for the sake of the argument the fact that you're trying to fix something that's not broken in the first place...

While I agree that "Neapolitan" would make sense as a demonym for the fictional kingdom of Neapolis, it nevertheless 1) is an extrapolation, and 2) introduces an ambiguity ("Neapolitan" as in "from Naples" or "from the fictional kingdom of Neapolis"?).

I'm trying to think of some way in which your version is better (or, in fact, a way in which it isn't worse), and I'm really not seeing it. Am I missing something, or are you just picking fights for the sake of it, at this point? Erigu (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Neapolitan" works perfectly fine considering that there is no real Naples within the work of fiction. I don't see any reason not to use it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Did they say there was no Naples in that fictional universe? But let's say that's the case for the sake of the argument: are we assuming anybody reading that article would know that?

I explained why I have a problem (well, a couple of those) with your version, whereas you still haven't pointed out a single issue with mine. Still, you revert. Again and again.

The silliness and pettiness of your attitude are disturbingly transparent, at this point, Ryulong. Erigu (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Neapolitan" should be used. You don't. It was used prior to your changes. I'm restoring status quo. What the hell is the problem?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you're forcing me into an edit war over this bullshit. "Extrapolation"? I have no effing clue what you mean by this. And there is no ambiguity. If we refer to one character as being from "Neapolis" then it's perfectly fine to refer to other characters as being "Neapolitan" knowing full well that we've referred to a "Kingdom of Neapolis" earlier in the page. I don't see any reason to make an unnecessary level of description saying that Oyecomova and Wekapipo are "from the Kingdom of Neapolis" when it is perfectly valid to say that they are "Neapolitan", regardless of that one word being used in English to refer to someone from the modern day city of Naples rather than any particular other city or location that is also called "Neapolis".—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I told you what the problem is. To most people, "Neopolitan" would obviously mean "from Naples" (that's what the dictionary would tell them). Instead of betting on the reader reading the rest of the page and connecting the dots, it's a lot more logical to simply use "from Neapolis". That would naturally be clearer.

I'll also remind you that the article used to confuse the fictional kingdom of Neapolis with the city of Naples (in fact, you were visibly confused about that as well, since you initially (and oh-so-typically) reverted my attempt to clarify the situation), so removing that potential ambiguity would clearly be for the best.

I have a really hard time believing you don't understand something so simple.

And no, replacing "Neapolitan" with "from Neapolis" doesn't "add a level of description". You're not making sense, Ryulong.

So I explained why I changed that bit. Several times. On the other hand, you haven't give a single good reason for your multiple reverts.

It's pure bad faith on your part, and I'm tired of your nonsense. You don't own those articles and you don't get to revert people's edits for no good reason. Erigu (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]