User talk:Ganryuu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Correct infoboxes

Just FYI that there is a correct infobox for singles (not albums), it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs - referenced from Kaidoku Funō. SkierRMH 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks a bunch for fixing up and adding to Sisters of Wellber. I knew something was probably off when I was listing a record label as the production studio :-) --Darkbane 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Geass

"on a same individual" is not grammatically correct English. Technically "per individual" is correct, carries the meaning you intend, and should not cause confusion. Since you're unhappy with it, I would suggest an alternative: "on a given individual". Hope this helps. --Darkbane 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "per individual" within that particular sentence did not seem clearer to me and may have caused possible confusion, due to the subject matter, thus my revision to an earlier version, but I didn't actually seriously check that particular sentence and earlier term thoroughly. But, if you think a term's better suited to the sentence, then it's probably better if you add that yourself (^_^). Thanks for pointing out my error. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I may have been too bold in the past, I suppose I am now suffering from not being bold enough in my edits :) I'll keep it in mind. --Darkbane 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MOS-JA over names

1. (cur) (last) 16:58, 2 April 2007 Ganryuu (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Koichi Yamadera to Kōichi Yamadera over redirect: Per WP:MOS-JA)

Ganryuu: "Spelling, including macron usage, of the name of a modern figure should adhere to the following, in order of preference:

      1. Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet;
      2. Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary;
      3. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;
      4. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or
      5. If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.

"

If you want, I can get proof that his trade name = Koichi Yamadera. WhisperToMe 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, all I got from my last posting (Yes, I made a counterargument) was "I think you're addressing User:DivineLady, not me. -- Hoary 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)" - I think we need to discuss the word "behalf," because, Ganryuu, their arguments lie entirely on the usage of "behalf."

If you look on MOS-JA, 3. states "Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;"

Ganryu, from my interpretation of the phrase, it doesn't matter if Yamadera produced no evidence that he himself used the name. Other people use it in his place, i.e., on his behalf. If other people see no. 3 differently, then that means no. 3 has a flaw, doesn't it?

Does this mean the MOS needs to be changed?

WhisperToMe 07:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the English-speaking world and have used "Kōichi Yamadera" (strictly going by his Japanese name 山寺宏一). So by definition it must be "Kōichi Yamadera". Then you claim that you use "Koichi Yamadera" (how was that derived? on a whim?), so it must be "Koichi Yamadera". So, Rule 3 is useless. OK, on to the next rule. The first language suggested is French, and I see fr:Kōichi Yamadera. There are other languages which conflict, so Rule 4 is not of much use either. Now we are at Rule 5, so we use "Kōichi Yamadera". The MOS is very messed up and in its present form we will continue to have these arguments everyday. Rule 5 should be the default from the very beginning. Rule 1 is non sequitur in regards to people so should be removed. As is Rule 2; these are people, not lexical terms. Change would be nice, but I am sure that we can not please everyone. Bendono 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hi, Ganryuu. My technical wikibreak is going well. Do you have any assignments for me to work on? Thanks and Best Wishes. Sjones23 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Toward the Terra

Ganryuu, those are the official release titles (at least the manga and movie ones) for the USA releases. Why remove them from the infobox? --Darkbane 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They give an incorrect impression that the different adaptations of the series were each originally titled differently, which is not the case; for example, the anime is titled under its original title whereas the others weren't, this would only cause a misconception as the original title of the series is already given right below the kanji. Since the distribution issues have already been explained in the introduction, there's no need to list them within the infobox itself, in my humble opinion. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, good point. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. --Darkbane 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Code Geass staff

"Better" is a pretty subjective term =) To me, the previous formatting looks pretty bad, to be honest. It's very hard to find any information in it. Are you referring to Wikipedia:List_guideline#Tables, which states that tables should be avoided unless there is a need for 3+ columns? --Darkbane ^talk 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the previous formatting used a pretty excessive amount of bold font, in my opinion, and there was no real need to divide it into different columns, as I don't really think it's too difficult to find any particular information on it; it's better the way it is, in my humble opinion. It's also not easily dividable into columns, since unlike other lists, this is neither supposed to be alphabetically nor numerically arranged. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it does not differentiate between title and name, and of course does not have tabulation, it's very much unclear to read. Maybe we could settle on something like the staff list in Madlax#Production? I think that format is pretty good, though we don't necessarily have to bold it if it's in a table like that. The question would then be where to place it in the article. --Darkbane ^talk 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to change the current format, as I think it's really quite easy to gather information from it the way it is. The formatting used in the Madlax article is not comparable and will not work here, as there is simply not enough comparable content or references to work on in the production section. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. Why is it that every time I try to substantially improve an article, it turns out like this? -_-; It's not fine the way it is now, for the reasons I outlined above. I won't argue further though, since you're so much against it. --Darkbane ^talk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)