User talk:Monocrat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Hi 3 Chobits Characters 4 Article assessments 5 NGE assessment 6 Heads up 7 Rikdo Koshi 8 Richard III (1955 film) 9 Harry Potter Page 10 FAC Excel 11 Comparative method 12 Poetry an FA! 13 Thinking alike? 14 Excel FAC 15 FBI 16 Today's mission— great success! 17 BarnSakura 18 Megatokyo FAC 19 Serial Experiments Lain 20 Golden Boy (manga) GA 21 Musical theatre 22 Flabby flabby flabby flabby 23 Serial Experiments Lain

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Monocrat, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox  ^{T C E} 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi monocrat, thanks for your suggestions on the Harry Potter article, I really appreciate the help and I hope that in the end you do decide to help out with the article and implement some of your suggestions. *dusts off knees from grovleing*

Later, TonyJoe 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I was wondering if you would say in your opinion that the Harry Potter article is ready to be renominated as a good article now? TonyJoe 03:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again monocrat. Someone nominated HP for FAC. It was quite a shocking thing to leave a page for an hour and come back and see two people tearing into it. Anyway, I was hoping that you would be willing to comment and or vote on the article there, up or down. TonyJoe 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chobits Characters

I noticed you put a "B" rated notice on the Ai Yori Aoshi article, one that I have put a moderate amount of work into. I was wondering, how would you rate the Chobits Characters article? Good? Bad? Medium? Does the anime community here have their own peer review section? If so, I would be interested in submitting the article, because I truly want it to be as good as possible, and, as hard as I have worked on it (VERY hard, I basically re-wrote the whole thing by myself), I'm sure it could use many improvements. PiccoloNamek 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, really. The details on how to rate articles are included in "Wikiproject Anime and Manga" box in Ai Yori Aoshi (and which I added to Chobits Characters. AYA looked like it had enough information on plot and character to warrant B (after a very cursory glance or two), but I'm not sure how to evaluate lists of characters like the one you mentioned. I'm new, but the folks around the anime and manga WikiProject seem fairly helpful. I don't know about a formal "Peer Review" for the category, but look around! --Monocrat 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessments

Hi, I noticed you were tagging some Bleach articles for certain classes (e.g. Stub, Start). I'm curious as to who did the assessment. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the assessment based on the assessment criteria, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga. The ratings are subjective, and I made it after only a brief perusal of the article, which struck me as lacking sufficient plot or production detail but having too much character information. But there's enough character detail and illustrative links to warrant "Start." As for the character articles I assessed, there's a lot of in-story history, but I couldn't find origins, or parallels with other works. See WP:FICTION. Citations are another issue. If I missed anything, let me know. --Monocrat 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NGE assessment

SeizureDog, first of all, thank you for your help with Excel Saga: it's a much improved article for your effort. Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, however, I wanted to say that I disagree with your assessing Neon Genesis Evangelion as A-class. While NGE might meet the "Reader's experience" aspect of A-class, I don't think it meets the "Editor's experience" or the actual criteria: although it requires "sufficient external literature references," NGE only has two, one of which is Madman's website, the other a reference to a book, the very citation of which might itself be original research. I also think the article could be structured better. I love Eva, and I want to see it reach FA, so I'll leave some notes on the peer review when I have time (I've been meaning to do so, but Excel has kept me busy!). Hope you don't mind my discussing this privately. --Monocrat 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. NGE is a tough article to rate, as it doesn't fit any class well. I understand that the references point is a tough hit, but I really don't want to knock it down to B-Class. It is much longer and more complete than most anime articles, and doesn't compare to the average B-Class article (compare NGE to Akira (film) or AIR (game)). I think we should adjust our viewing of the scale for own purposes towards anime. As we both know how hard it can be to cite sources (and since it does at least have some), I was a but loose in my assessment and gave it an A-Class. Basically, I felt that even with its lack of sources, it was A-Class in comparision to other anime articles. --SeizureDog 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how does user-talk-page-communication work? Pardon my noobness. ;) I understand that standards should (perhaps) be different for anime, but we're never going to get an FA if we don't ultimately judge ourselves against the rest of Wikipedia. Looking at some of the comments FACs receive, I honestly think NGE would be ripped apart right now, anime or not. Heck, looking at the FACs, spurred on by your comment, is what moved me to rewrite all of Excel Saga. Beyond that, however, I don't know I agree with the idea of one person awarding A-class: FA requires (theoretically) the (at least tacit) approval of many Wikipedians, whereas a GA requires one disinterested Wikipedian's approval. Shouldn't A-class be somewhere in-between, demanding several Wikipedians? I was thinking of proposing to the project that A-class be awarded only after nomination. What do you think?

Generally you would come back over to my talk page to post your responce. This way, the "You have new messages" thingy flashes up. But in this case, I just refreshed your page so it's no problem :P Obviously NGE isn't worthy of FA status yet, but I feel that it does have all of the information needed to be one, once it is smoothed out and sourced. It no longer needs much expanding, just polish, which is to me what the A-class is all about. I agree with the thought that more than one person should agree on the A-classification though. Perhaps ask a third person to view these comments and give an opinion? I don't see it warrenting more than a three user vote process though, it's not something that needs too much effort wasted on.--SeizureDog 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although perhaps the practice should be ratified by the group?--Monocrat 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No need. You're not likely to get more than 3 people to vote in our group anyways. And like I said before, A-Class is not a formal process. Plus when you think about it, a GA only takes one person, it shouldn't be much of a step up from that.--SeizureDog 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. :) --Monocrat 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who's objecting, it should be your job to find somebody :P Plus I have to take a shower now so I'm rather busy.--SeizureDog 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I am the one who has been asked. I had already noticed that NGE was rated A-Class and I have read the article through and yes it is thorough and complete in content. There are some minor grammar problems for example: "Just as humanity is finishing its recovery from this disaster, Tokyo-3, a militarized civilian city located on the last dry sections of Japan, began suffering attacks by strange monsters referred to as Angels." (Incorrect tense. Should be has instead of is or, alternately begins instead of began). And reading that sentence I have just realized that it would read better if it were reworded so Tokyo 3 isn't explained mid-sentence.

There are also no references where there definately should be references. When the editor makes a statement with According to then that sentence needs a reference because you are quoting someone. There are three instances of According to in the article, no references of them. The lead of the article should only talk about one aspect of the anime once. The lead currently has some information about the anime as a production and it also has information about the origin of the Plot.

It talks about the production first

 Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion?) is a Japanese animated television series, begun in 1995, directed and written by Hideaki Anno, and produced by Gainax

Then it talks about the plot and how Hideaki Anno had depression and how it affected the story. Then it goes back to talking about the production again.

The television series aired in Japan from 1995 to 1996, ran for 26 episodes, and was released on VHS and DVD in North America and the UK by ADV Films. The show premiered on Adult Swim on Thursday, October 20, 2005, although it had been previously debuted in the United States in 2000 on KTEH, a PBS station located in San Jose, California. The first two episodes were also shown once on Toonami, albeit in a highly edited form.

The unedited / DVD versions received a Parental Guidance certificate, though some episodes are considered to be stronger than the certificate might otherwise indicate because they deal with issues of violence, emotional trauma, or contain some mild sexual themes.

The plot information in the lead then becomes a case of "scrolling back" because the actual Plot section in much later in the article. Then the Plot section also suffers from "scrolling back" when the reader gets to the Translation notes section. For example under Translation notes the sentence "The term Gehirn is German for "brain". Seele is the German term for "soul". Nerv is the German term for "nerve"." could have been included in context when they are first mentioned in the Plot section. So that's another example of referring to the same content but separated.

Now I don't think that it currently should be assessed as A-Class, but it is the subject of a peer review... I guess I just did a peer review so these issues can be raised on the peer review page if wanted, or they can be fixed. I don't think a reader should be able to find several areas on an article that need work and be able to class it as A-Class, my opinion is to bump it back to GA or even B until that peer review ends. I do think it is close content-wise but it just needs polishing. --Squilibob 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Noted and lowered. Now we don't have any true Featured OR A class articles. How depressing. --SeizureDog 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but A-class isn't much of a goal, you know? It's right in between two tangible "awards". Seems like if we get anything to A-class it wouldn't take much more work to make it FA. I dunno, A and FA just seem a little too similar to me. Anyways, on a related note, I got my first GA today ^_^ You thought your reviews were hard to cite mine were all foreign. -_- Man it was a pain. It's Believers btw--SeizureDog 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

I just noticed what you did with Excel Saga, and I must say That Article has truly come a long way. Not going nostalgic here or anything, but one of my first major contributions to Wikipedia was adding the bare bones of what is now the list of Excel Saga episodes to That Article about two years ago (diff). Needless to say, I learned a bit about encyclopedic writing since then, and I'm not surprised nearly nothing of the original wording survived ;) It dropped out of my sight and watchlist somewhere along the way, but now I noticed that some major restructuring is afoot, and I'm impressed, since the last time I looked about a year ago I frankly considered the article beyond hope. Anyway, if you take it to peer review or FAC, feel free notify me if I don't show up on my own, since I'm still quite attached to both the article and the anime. But enough nostalgic rambling, I just wanted to say that you're doing a great job. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rikdo Koshi

"(cur) (last) 14:33, 2 June 2006 Monocrat (Rewrite lead. Standardize to "Rikudou Koushi", explain variants.)"

Unfortunately, your standardization is incorrect. His name is written as "Rikdo Koshi" in all English-language versions of his products. WhisperToMe 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: It turns out ADV does use Koshi Rikdo (at least sometimes) - But if we followed the MOS to the book, it would have to be "Koshi Rikdo" OR "Koushi Rikudou". WhisperToMe 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ADV uses only the one form; please provide me a source for any variants they use. Nearly every episode begins "I, Koshi Rikdo..." in the subtitles, and the copyright notices are in the same name. And the MOS prescribes "the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet" before "the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world." In choosing between the Americanization and the form he himself uses, I chose the latter, and I would like to stick with it. I have perhaps erred in placing the surname before the given name, so I'll try to fix that.--Monocrat 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

""the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet" "

In a sense, the names used in the manga and anime versions would have to be trade names too. After all, he knows what names ADV/VIZ/etc use to represent him. In a sense "Koshi Rikdo" is official too since it is on his official product in North America. WhisperToMe 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those are names used for but not by him. VIZ uses "Rikdo Koshi," ADV uses "Koshi Rikdo," JC Staff used "Rikudo" in the background of at least one episodes of the anime. Official sources disagree as to his tradename, therefore I have adopted the one he himself uses. I would say deference for his official romanization should in this case be given to him.--Monocrat 02:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

" :Yes, but those are names used for but not by him." - Even so, he still condones the names used. If this was a commonly-used romanization that is not used by any official sources, then this would perfectly fit no. 3. But the fact that, as far as I know, he has to approve of the said naming choices makes it official too. Also no. 1 doesn't say that the person necessairly has to have come up with the name himself. The trade name article on Wikipedia talks about the trade name of a business: "A trade name, also known as a trading name or a business name, is the name which a business trades under for commercial purposes, although its registered, legal name, used for contracts and other formal situations, may be another." - The VIZ/ADV romanization in a sense is used that way in the States. WhisperToMe 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the ADV/VIZ names are names used for him, falling under point 3 in the cited MOS, whereas he himself operates (especially on his official homepage) under "Rikudou Koushi," that name therefore falling under point 1. Variants falling under 1 are to be used in preference to those under 3. Using "Rikudou" also has the advantage of allowing clearer differentiation of the author and his representation in the anime.--Monocrat 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that, since the licensors of the English language releases differ on how they romanize the name, that preference should be given to the romanization the person in question prefers to use when representing himself to the English speaking community, as referenced by Monocrat above. ReMarkAble 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - the WP manual of style for japanese specifically states the macron'ed versions of long vowels should be used, and you replaced a couple instances of them with ou. --moof 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The MOS specifically states that the macronned form should be used only if no other form can be found. See point five, "Macron usage..." I think I am in full compliance with the MOS. --Monocrat 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard III (1955 film)

Have adressed issues that were possible to adress. If you could just give a little more guidance on the FAC page, it would be appreciated. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A point that you pushed a lot has been accepted. The Cast section has been re-tooled. You may want to take a look. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Page

Just want to say sorry for the misunderstanding. Simply south 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Excel

Unrelated to the actual debate, I just wanna underline to you that I think you've done an excellent (sorry, sorry) job on the article. While it's one of the best manga/anime articles out there, I don't think the FA bar should be any lower than it is for western pop culture articles, despite the distance-and-language barriers to get comparable resources. For me, the main thing is you keep doing good-article-writing. --zippedmartin 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! And while I disagree with you on the citations, I appreciate the rigor you're putting the article through. I've ridden FACs hard myself, so I expected it. I concur that the standards shouldn't be lowered, 'though I think the article meets them. ;) I would, however, like to repeat my strenuous disagreement with your labelling the article as "dishonest." I have, nevertheless, tweaked some of the wording to hopefully address that concern. --Monocrat 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to say I think you're trying to lie to people, but that the article misrepresents its ability to provide commentary on the series. I think your wording changes have helped, but just *having* an article drawn only from those sources is misleading. Not in ways that make much difference to casual readers, but for the kind of resource that wikip aspires to be, it matters. --zippedmartin 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative method

Thanks for the feedback - we've added a section on Origins and Development as you suggested. Please let us know what you think. Cheers, sjcollier 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry an FA!

Poetry has been promoted to an FA, and I wanted to thank you for all your help. Your critiques during its FAC process were right on target and I really appreciated everything you put into it. Thanks! Sam 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking alike?

The "you have new messages" header popped up when I opened the edit window of the FAC to add my reply ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel FAC

Thanks for adding that new citation; that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'm tempted to support the article--as I noted earlier, I think the overall approach and tone is spot on, which is a rarity for articles in this field--but I find Lee Bailey's objection too persuasive to do so at this time. With regards to that, you might want to ask a few people in Category:User_ja-4 or Category:User_ja-N if they could help you find some Japanese sources. --Robth^Talk 04:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FBI

I cleaned the history up a bit. Please leave your comments on the FAC page so I see them. Thanks! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated the FBI page. More comments welcome! (as you can see... targeting the FBI article for FA status is my main goal. :)) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on sub-articles to expand the two other divisions. Adding a summary to the FBI article is good for now I understand that. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the dates to the divisions and and working on the "sub" articles, but those arn't my primary focus right now. To understand what you are suggesting... to remove the "units" in the divions and talk about the general history? Wouldn't that make the Orginization section "stubby"? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's mission— great success!

Excel Saga is a FA now. Way to go! Any plans on where to go next? (let's just say that your stated intention of tackling NGE is interesting, but errr... ambitious) -- grm_wnr Esc 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BarnSakura

Well duh, you deserve it mate. --SeizureDog 07:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo FAC

Have your objections on the Megatokyo FAC been resolved? If not, what still needs to be fixed? If so, can you strike out your objection? Many thanks for your help. --L33tminion (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• On another note, the article has recently undergone a massive copyedit. You might want to look it over, Monocrat, to see if the prose issues have been taken care of. JimmyBlackwing 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial Experiments Lain

Hi! I've been doing a little work on the Lain article recently, and now i've fallen short of ideas. I saw that you have some responsability on getting us THE Good Anime Article, so I was wondering if you would mind having a look and maybe letting me know what's urgent to do before I put it through peer review.... Cheers for the great work anyway!--SidiLemine 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Boy (manga) GA

An absolute pleasure, I also caught the message at the last moment after wondering about the image removal. You did great work on that article and the GA is well-deserved. - Phorque 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical theatre

Hi there. Can you please take a look at the statements that we make at musical theatre regarding Anime, manga and Japanese musical theatre and see if you have any thoughts/comments/corrections? I am guessing that you know considerably more about this than I do, and my research about it has only scratched the surface. You can probably just open up the article and search for "anime" and "Japan" to see what statements are made. Note that musical theatre focuses on stage shows, not TV or film. Note also that we are trying to broaden the article's perspective beyond English-language London/New York musicals, to the extent appropriate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flabby flabby flabby flabby

I count four times so far that you've used the word "flabby" to describe my writing. I've commented on FAC a bit, often specifically on language and style, and it actually wouldn't occur to me to talk that way even once about anybody's good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. It wouldn't matter how wretched I thought their prose, I would still be mindful of the effort and find less offensive words. Are you going out of your way to be hostile? Have we met, have I offended you in some way? Bishonen | talk 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Serial Experiments Lain

Hi Monocrat!

I've been doing some more work on Lain since GA, and have taken on the foolhardy task of presenting it to FAC. There's still one or two things to do before it meets all the demands, but the one I've found hardest is to satisfy criterion 1a. Prose is not good, and certainly not brilliant. Would you mind helping with the copyedit? Any improvements suggestions are also very welcome. --SidiLemine 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! These are all very interesting suggestions, and I'll look into them very close. Removing the other publications will make the article prettier. About merging the plot and characters sections, I like what you've done with Excel, but for Lain that would probably mean to delete the characters section, and that's it; only Lain and Eiri Masami are really important, and her family is already described in the lead. I'll ask the other editors what they think about it. I asked Grm wnr if he would help, I hope he'll have time! Well, thanks for your time. Let me know when you need imput with the list of Excel Saga media; and I look forward to working together on NGE!--SidiLemine 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)