| Revision as of 18:21, 31 May 2010 editMartarius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers154,513 edits +wt← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:20, 14 July 2010 edit undoLegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs)10,034 edits →Book causes extensive therapy for kid?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| It seems to be banned in thailand... | It seems to be banned in thailand... | ||
| ] (]) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | ] (]) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Book causes extensive therapy for kid? == | |||
| This book is involved in a news story about a boy needing extensive therapy after stealing the book from a public library and keeping it for a year. See my blog post for the reliable sources contained therein: . --] (]) 05:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:20, 14 July 2010
 | Anime and manga Start‑class Low‑importance  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | Science Fiction Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Collectonian, add a citation needed tag if you doubt it exists, or do some Googling
this is where you can find the Japanese version of the famous online book store Amazon, with a Google translation showing you what it says. Since the name of the book and its ID number were listed, it didn't take but one quick search on Google to find that. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The Gantz wiki link
We were discussing this over at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:External_links and I was told that substantial editors, just means you have someone to undo any vandalism. So WP:ELNO is not valid. There is no set number. It has a history of being stable all this time, and there are enough editors about to keep it clean from vandals. As for the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY reason, that is just nonsense. There is enough valuable information there, to warrant inclusion. Dream Focus (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't attempt to twist that conversation to claim the Gantz wiki is somehow valid. No one said anything of the kind, nor did they say Gantz wiki met EL in any way, shape, or form. The site clearly violates EL and will not be added here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at http://gantz.wikia.com/Special:RecentChanges reveals how small a wiki it is. 22 changes from 6 February 2009 to 8 February 2009. No changes at all on 10 February 2009. And most of these changes were made by you. It nowhere near meets the criteria. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- The wikia's site statistics shows 63 legitimate content pages, and ListUser shows 9 users with 5 or more edits. Also, reviewing the content pages show that most, if not all, appear to be entirely unsourced - meaning the wikia is effectively an attempted back-door around Misplaced Pages's no original research requirements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- All information is from the manga. There is no reason to list which page and issue every bit of information came from. And there is no need to add new pages, when everything that could have a page already does. There isn't really any new information to add. Will others, preferably fans of the series, please state their opinions on this. I don't see as how the size of the wiki is relevant in any way. Dream Focus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're presuming we're not fans of the series. For the record, I'm a huge fan. I'm just not interested in seeing links to sub-par content that doesn't meet WP:LINKS. I also think that the fact that you're a regular contributor there presents a potential conflict of interest. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- All information is from the manga. There is no reason to list which page and issue every bit of information came from. And there is no need to add new pages, when everything that could have a page already does. There isn't really any new information to add. Will others, preferably fans of the series, please state their opinions on this. I don't see as how the size of the wiki is relevant in any way. Dream Focus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
wiki more developed now, topic raised once more
- There are now 41 editors who have edited at least once, not counting the bots. The amount of content has grown and improved. Since another editor has recently posted a link to the Gantz wikia(before it was reverted), we're back here again. How many believe its a valid link? There have been thousands of views for some pages, the most popular one getting 17583 hits, thanks to Google listing it fairly highly on search results. There are 72 articles on this wiki, however if that number isn't too relevant, since some subjects have more things to talk about than others, and thus more pages. Dream Focus 02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The wiki is now as inactive as it was the last time I checked and it's not slightly too inactive, it's way too inactive to be listed here. Goodraise 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are updates whenever new issues come out, as was done with the recent issue. They are short, and not a lot happens. It took two years to get through the Osaka mission after all. Activity isn't relevant, only content. Does it provide a lot of information someone interested in Gantz would like to see? Dream Focus 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It still fails WP:EL and still doesn't belong. If fans want to see it, they have Google. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As in all guidelines, those are just suggestions, done by a small number of people, and can be ignored. I look at the history of that page, and see how many times its been edited and reverted. No reasonable person could ever take such a thing seriously. You have to form consensus and use common sense. And I don't see any reason why this would be different than any other external link. Linking to a place that has a review of something, or a brief entry of something, provides the reader with less information than linking to a wiki which has far more available for them. Dream Focus 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me like there is consensus here not to add it. What else are you looking for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As in all guidelines, those are just suggestions, done by a small number of people, and can be ignored. I look at the history of that page, and see how many times its been edited and reverted. No reasonable person could ever take such a thing seriously. You have to form consensus and use common sense. And I don't see any reason why this would be different than any other external link. Linking to a place that has a review of something, or a brief entry of something, provides the reader with less information than linking to a wiki which has far more available for them. Dream Focus 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It still fails WP:EL and still doesn't belong. If fans want to see it, they have Google. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are updates whenever new issues come out, as was done with the recent issue. They are short, and not a lot happens. It took two years to get through the Osaka mission after all. Activity isn't relevant, only content. Does it provide a lot of information someone interested in Gantz would like to see? Dream Focus 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The wiki is now as inactive as it was the last time I checked and it's not slightly too inactive, it's way too inactive to be listed here. Goodraise 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- A valid reason, and input from a reasonable number of people. Dream Focus 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You've been given several reasons so far -- your conflict of interest, the fact that your wiki is small and inactive, an opinion that it is of low quality -- all of these are valid reasons on their own and when taken together are more than enough reason to exclude your link. How many editors would you consider "a reasonable number of people"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- No conflict of interest if someone else post the link. And it is not inactive, you can check the history and see how often someone contributes. If someone sincerely thinks it is of significant lower quality than the main Gantz article here, then that would be a valid argument. Collectionian considers almost everything fancruft, and was responsible for deleting most of the original content that had been around for quite some time in the original[REDACTED] article. I was curious of the opinions of other editors though. Three editors total responded above since the most recent discussion, and one below. Not a whole lot of people. The quality level now is in question, not what it was months ago. Dream Focus 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- So exactly how many editors need to respond before you agree that there is consensus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since 41 people thought the wiki worth editing at least once, and one person other than myself wants to add it now, against four who are apparently against it, I would think a few more editors would probably convince me. And do you personally consider it to be of low quality, not worth linking to? Dream Focus 17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the quality of your wiki. You don't seem to accept reasonable arguments or WP guidelines, so I'm just trying to establish how many more people need to tell you "no" before you will accept that there is a consensus. So "a few more" means "three more" to me. Is that right? You'll stop this if three more editors say they don't think it should be linked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Everything is done by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment. The guidelines are constantly being edited and reverted, determined by a small number of people, no vote by the[REDACTED] editors at large, and are just suggestions not rules. That's why they are guidelines instead of policy. And consensus is formed through discussion, until everything is worked out, not someone just giving a flat answer without explanation, and having that mindlessly accepted. Dream Focus 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that. If three more editors tell you they don't think the link to your wiki should be included for whatever reason, will you accept that there is consensus? It's a yes or no answer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't add it back did I? As long as the majority of people say to keep it out, so be it. I am just curious about everyone's reasoning. As long as you are thinking for yourself, and not just mindlessly quoting guidelines, then so be it. And if you agree with the guidelines, then by all means, that is valid. But you can't just say, "its written there, and even though it is just a suggestion, we should still follow it without thinking". That's how most people unfortunately are with those things in the AFD, although fortunately more often than not people ignore them and use their own reasoning skills to make a decision. Dream Focus 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the question, but if it's just a majority you're looking for, you already have that and you've already been given several reasons, so can we call this closed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- When people run out of things to say, then all discussions end. If someone comes by later and wants to add to this discussion, I'll likely to respond to their post if I have something to say, and we'll discuss things. You don't actually declare something closed on wikipedia. Many people who are at school or work when this discussion takes place, might not be able to participate right now, or might only check on weekends. Anyway, everyone's opinion is valid, never hesitate to say what's on your mind. As long as you sincerely believe what you are saying, no fault in saying it. Dream Focus 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you when you would accept that there was consensus and you seemed to be saying when three more people agreed that the link shouldn't be included. Then you said when there's a majority, but there already is a majority. Now you're saying that the discussion has no end, which doesn't seem very reasonable - this discussion can end and another one be started if something changes substantially at a later date. All I'm trying to do is get you to state when you will accept that there is a consensus here. I believe there already is, and that any further discussion is pointless, but I would like to know if you would ever, under any circumstances, accept that the consensus is not to add your wiki link. Would you? When? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, misunderstanding. Yes, so far the majority are against having that link there. Unless more people come in and say otherwise, and thus the opinion of the majority changes, then I won't try adding it back in. Dream Focus 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't what I was asking. I keep asking you the same very simple question and you haven't given me a clear answer yet. I suggest that this topic remains open for a couple of weeks in case anyone else has a new opinion to offer and then gets archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That happens automatically. All topics remain, until there is enough to fill up the page, then any older topic gets automatically archived. And yes, I support leaving it here, as happens always anyway, and then when the magical all knowing archiving bot decides to put it away, so be it. The bot knows when nothing new has been posted in a section for a set time, and puts it away if the page is above a certain size. Dream Focus 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't what I was asking. I keep asking you the same very simple question and you haven't given me a clear answer yet. I suggest that this topic remains open for a couple of weeks in case anyone else has a new opinion to offer and then gets archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, misunderstanding. Yes, so far the majority are against having that link there. Unless more people come in and say otherwise, and thus the opinion of the majority changes, then I won't try adding it back in. Dream Focus 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you when you would accept that there was consensus and you seemed to be saying when three more people agreed that the link shouldn't be included. Then you said when there's a majority, but there already is a majority. Now you're saying that the discussion has no end, which doesn't seem very reasonable - this discussion can end and another one be started if something changes substantially at a later date. All I'm trying to do is get you to state when you will accept that there is a consensus here. I believe there already is, and that any further discussion is pointless, but I would like to know if you would ever, under any circumstances, accept that the consensus is not to add your wiki link. Would you? When? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- When people run out of things to say, then all discussions end. If someone comes by later and wants to add to this discussion, I'll likely to respond to their post if I have something to say, and we'll discuss things. You don't actually declare something closed on wikipedia. Many people who are at school or work when this discussion takes place, might not be able to participate right now, or might only check on weekends. Anyway, everyone's opinion is valid, never hesitate to say what's on your mind. As long as you sincerely believe what you are saying, no fault in saying it. Dream Focus 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the question, but if it's just a majority you're looking for, you already have that and you've already been given several reasons, so can we call this closed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't add it back did I? As long as the majority of people say to keep it out, so be it. I am just curious about everyone's reasoning. As long as you are thinking for yourself, and not just mindlessly quoting guidelines, then so be it. And if you agree with the guidelines, then by all means, that is valid. But you can't just say, "its written there, and even though it is just a suggestion, we should still follow it without thinking". That's how most people unfortunately are with those things in the AFD, although fortunately more often than not people ignore them and use their own reasoning skills to make a decision. Dream Focus 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that. If three more editors tell you they don't think the link to your wiki should be included for whatever reason, will you accept that there is consensus? It's a yes or no answer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Everything is done by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment. The guidelines are constantly being edited and reverted, determined by a small number of people, no vote by the[REDACTED] editors at large, and are just suggestions not rules. That's why they are guidelines instead of policy. And consensus is formed through discussion, until everything is worked out, not someone just giving a flat answer without explanation, and having that mindlessly accepted. Dream Focus 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the quality of your wiki. You don't seem to accept reasonable arguments or WP guidelines, so I'm just trying to establish how many more people need to tell you "no" before you will accept that there is a consensus. So "a few more" means "three more" to me. Is that right? You'll stop this if three more editors say they don't think it should be linked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since 41 people thought the wiki worth editing at least once, and one person other than myself wants to add it now, against four who are apparently against it, I would think a few more editors would probably convince me. And do you personally consider it to be of low quality, not worth linking to? Dream Focus 17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- So exactly how many editors need to respond before you agree that there is consensus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- No conflict of interest if someone else post the link. And it is not inactive, you can check the history and see how often someone contributes. If someone sincerely thinks it is of significant lower quality than the main Gantz article here, then that would be a valid argument. Collectionian considers almost everything fancruft, and was responsible for deleting most of the original content that had been around for quite some time in the original[REDACTED] article. I was curious of the opinions of other editors though. Three editors total responded above since the most recent discussion, and one below. Not a whole lot of people. The quality level now is in question, not what it was months ago. Dream Focus 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You have received many already. Most importantly, however, is the fact that it is not necessary. It is, regardless of any growing effort, a fan site of dubious quality at this point in time. You don't have to like the consensus, and I can't much blame you for it, but it is still what it is. Don't make it into a bigger thing than it is. :) --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing is necessary, but external links still exist, to provide additional information to those interested in a subject. And have you seen the current version of the wiki? Do you consider it to be of poor quality? Dream Focus 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You've been given several reasons so far -- your conflict of interest, the fact that your wiki is small and inactive, an opinion that it is of low quality -- all of these are valid reasons on their own and when taken together are more than enough reason to exclude your link. How many editors would you consider "a reasonable number of people"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Short answer, likely to incite bad reaction: Yes.
- Brief aside: I'm not talking "metaphysically necessary".
- Long answer: As far as Wiki subjects go, there are some inclusions that can be considered necessary for a complete (let alone "good") entry, some that can be included in an otherwise good entry, and some that just should not be added at the current time. Considering the fledgling nature of the Gantz Wiki, it falls into the later category. If it were simply another wiki article then I would state that it needs more work, but that isn't how an external link work. External links, among other things, are there to provide access at a level not possible under Misplaced Pages regs. The Gantz Wiki doesn't even do that at this time; in fact (as a specific example) the plot synopsis (one of the few things you would expect an external link for this topic to elaborate on) is essentially nonexistent. Also there are more than a few links back to Misplaced Pages, which doesn't speak tomes for it's "elaborated information".
- Look, you've gotten quite specific feedback on this, but also the Talk page is not the place to be giving critiques for private websites. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Its as good a place as any, it relevant to what gets added to the page. The main page mentions briefly what its about, and then you have a link a section called Aspects of the missions which gives greater detail. The main page also gives a link to a section explaining the equipment, a character list, and a chart information on who participated in each mission and the results. The chapter list links back to the wikipedia, that list already rather complete, no sense just copying it over. Nothing else links back here though. Dream Focus 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, no it's not the place to discuss your page. It just flat out isn't. I'm welcome to it being improved an included at a later date, but this is not the place you discuss that. Discuss it with other editors on that Wiki and/or forums, but at the risk of sounding overly guideline-quotey, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for discussions like this.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Its as good a place as any, it relevant to what gets added to the page. The main page mentions briefly what its about, and then you have a link a section called Aspects of the missions which gives greater detail. The main page also gives a link to a section explaining the equipment, a character list, and a chart information on who participated in each mission and the results. The chapter list links back to the wikipedia, that list already rather complete, no sense just copying it over. Nothing else links back here though. Dream Focus 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
How to make Gantz is explained.
The original writer's comment adheres. http://www.contentparadise.com/static/jp_newsletter/20080425/index.html 219.160.59.193 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its all in Japanese. If I could understand it I would add it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was a description of how Gantz was made in the manga. http://gantz.wikia.com/The_making_of_Gantz Dream Focus 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is more or less the same what there is in the production section of this article. It came in volume 1.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
recent edits discussion
My edit eliminated the bald man mentioned twice. Also, you can't say "Without explaining further, the Gantz sphere opens" after the previous paragraph mentions there is a guy in there and green text on the screen. The guy and the text don't appear until after it opens. Dream Focus 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree on that but there is no need describe everything that happens in the room.Tintor2 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
correction
in the artical u said that all the main characters, except kurono, die. this however, is not true in that kurono does in fact die in the manga version and is brout bavk twice so that there are 2 of him,ovce by reika and once by katou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.6.13 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was Oku's (the author's) comment about what would happen in the manga. He may have changed his opinion during serialization.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Manga banned in thailand
It seems to be banned in thailand... 203.161.68.25 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Book causes extensive therapy for kid?
This book is involved in a news story about a boy needing extensive therapy after stealing the book from a public library and keeping it for a year. See my blog post for the reliable sources contained therein: Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: