More or less resolved comments by Goodraise
I never liked having lists start with "The chapters/episodes/whatever of the" it sounds too much like "This is a list of chapters/episodes/whatever". Well, I suppose I can live with it, but this list is no longer about chapters. It has moved and the lead needs to reflect that. (And not only the first sentence.)In particular, the lead discusses chapter names, but the list contains none of them. Instead it lists volume names, but doesn't discuss them.The lead might also be a good place to explain the odd exception in the first table's first row, second column field.
- What exception? The first volume's title?
- Yes. At the moment, it is not obvious to the reader, which of the titles is the original one and which is the one used in the English adaptation. One might even mistake them to be a singular title, as in "Strawberry and the Soul Reapers: The Death and the Strawberry". Goodraise 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a note.Tintor2 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the most gracious solution, but since I'm to blame for the table layout, I suppose I shouldn't open my mouth too wide. Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't sure either, but anyway any advice or or other way is welcome.
Unless I'm mistaken, Viz Media is a licensee, not a licensor.
"which include a poem based on the cover character." -- This is a bit cryptic and confusing. How can a poem be based on a character? And why is this noteworthy?
- I'm not sure about that since considering above, you wondered about discussing volumes. Modified a bit.
- What I don't get is what makes this worth mentioning in the lead? Manga volumes tend to include a lot of things aside from manga chapters. What's so special about these poems? Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The latest volume is forty-nine" -- Outdated?
- The FUR of the only image used is insufficient (not to mention pointing at the wrong article name).
-
-
-
- Okay, I realize that I can be pedantic at times, but this is not a laughing matter. These search results make me wonder. Are you sure you didn't violate anyone's copyright with this edit? Goodraise 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. I just reworded a bit the original version from template, considering my poor English and the fact that the reasons are the same for all book fur are the same.
- I see. As a senior editor, you should really have developed at least a basic understanding of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL by now. Believe it or not, with this edit you violated at least some of these people's copyright, because you did not provide proper attribution. Needless to say, the edit should be reverted. As for the FUR as it is displayed at the moment: There are major repetitions in the "Description" and "Replacable?" fields. Also, the text in the "Purpose of use" field claims that "[t]he image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary". However, I see no "critical commentary" in the article. (You could copy the manga volumes FUR from here. Just don't violate my copyright.) Goodraise 02:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewritten.Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewriting is not enough. You can't just take somebody's copyrighted work and pass it off as your own. That applies to the File: namespace just as much as to the article space. You can copy text from one Wikipedia page to another, but you have to give proper attribution. The bare minimum attribution for CC-BY-SA 3.0 content is a link to the place where you got the material in the edit summary. (Perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but I just can't except a fair use rationale which is itself a violation of copyright.) Goodraise 16:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember continuing copying the template, but now I'm unable to continue since you reverted my edit and it is in same condition you first pointed. If you talk about a link to where the image was obtained, the file already had it in the Non-free media data. I was about to add the Shueisha source anyway, but I found the file reverted.Tintor2 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Readded with the source.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand. I'm not talking about the file. I'm talking about the text of the FUR. You copied it from Template:Book cover fur to File:Bleach cover 01.jpg. Whenever you copy text from one page on Wikipedia to another, you have to provide a link to the page from which you took the text. That's the bare minimum for satisfying the CC-BY-SA 3.0. Goodraise 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was the reason I blanked the whole rationale and wrote a few parameters. If not every image using the same rationale had to give the same link as it used the same parameters. Anyway, added the link to other information.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Less pressing, but I'd also like the store.viz.com references replaced with www.viz.com references. We don't want to appear as a sales catalog, if we don't have to.
- Don't see the difference but I'll give it a try.
Even less pressing. Most web references are already archived. Mind doing the rest?
As for the procedure regarding the sublists. My suggestion is to tag them with the featured star for the moment and nominating them for reconfirmation FLRCs as well, as soon as this one is closed, especially since most of the original list's content is now part of those lists, not of this one. Goodraise 02:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about Goodraise's last comment - whether to tag first and send to FLRC or not to tag and send to WP:FLC... but I would then also recommend WP:FTC after everything is done. G.A.Stalk 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done some digging. I think I got the idea back in 2007. I already suspected my memory might not be perfectly accurate on this matter. It seems that even less came of that incident than I recalled and that my mind filled-in the blanks with what I thought to be the most reasonable course of action. However, I still think following my suggestion would be sensible and I also didn't hear any outraged protests, when I made the same suggestion in this recent discussion. Then again, it's the directors who will have to do the background work of this task, so asking one (or all) of them about it might be a good idea. Goodraise 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
