Talk:Megatokyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Megatokyo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 2, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 8, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 21, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept May 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Megatokyo, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within webcomics for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
P:C	This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Comics Portal.

Contents 1 Bio vs. Summary? 2 Support This Article 3 l33t 4 Image copyright 5 Manga Style? 6 Character articles 7 MT-Bashing 8 Bubblegum Crisis? 9 Western order 10 Character pages/Forum details 11 History 12 Megatokyo characters versus Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist 13 Absurd criticism 14 Possible external link 15 Characters 16 "Erika" - Katakana or Hiragana? 17 Forums again 18 Plot needed? 19 Where to do add this? 20 Rewrite 21 Omake (in particular 'Circuitry') 22 Which part need Improvement? 23 ia:Megatokyo 24 Removed pedophilia sentence 25 Questionable addition and Comment 26 Upload another comic. 27 Is pt:Megatokyo a featured article? 28 Characters Subsection 29 Character Template 30 move to Megatokyo (webcomic) 31 Character with backpack 32 Bounty board challenge 33 translations 34 Character 35 Featured Article 36 Weasel words in "Criticism and praise" 37 Citations 38 Recent article edits of dubious quality 39 Character Modification 40 Recent vandalism 41 Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo needs work 42 Someone Suggested a Merge 43 tagging 44 The use of sic 45 Megatokyo vs. megatokyo vs. MegaTokyo 46 Dom and Ed appear to be missing 47 FA nomination? 48 Prose 49 Is it ready? 50 Miho as Perkigoth 51 Last Item on To Do List 52 Yuki? 53 Thoughts 54 Naming order 54.1 Propose solution 54.2 End of debate 54.2.1 Conversation formatting 55 Replacement of cover images 56 Separate vs. Merged Plot and Character Sections 56.1 Merge the Sections 56.2 Leave them Separate 57 Plot Section 58 Rewrite and format change 59 Merge character pages? 60 Tobari Saeko 61 Shizuhara Eimi 62 The prose 63 Failed? 64 More prose 65 "the story" paragraph 66 Comment about Gallagher 67 Miho and Erika in Plot 68 Erika's disappearance 69 When did Caston Leave 70 Featured! 71 Sonada Yuki 72 Weasel wordism?

[edit] Bio vs. Summary?

I have had a fairly small section on the Largo character reverted twice now because a user felt that it was too much information and that it extended from a "summary" to a "bio". I don't feel this way, and obviously this is simply a difference in opinion, but to my credit let me point out that my contribution was less than a paragraph long, was a decent piece of information regarding the event that Largo has experienced earlier in his life that hugely affects his behavior and thoughts towards women (see strip number 849 to strip number 859 for the explanation of the event in the comic) that I concisely reflected under Largo's summary. I don't feel that including this section is going overboard with information, nor do I feel that it is any less important than the information written about his "l33t" tendancies and obsession with beer. It's a small, pertinent fact about the character that in my opinion does not extend the summary any further than what it should be. The reversion in question is listed on the history page, as "13:17, 18 May 2006 Hargle (Revert to previous version by JimmyBlackwing. Sorry to remove your hard work, but "Largo" does *not* need more information, as it is supposed to be a summary, not a full character bio)"

Here's the thing: Largo's section is already going past what has been suggested in the article's peer review, which makes your addition, though insightful, extremely excessive. For example, your edit included the following:

Largo appears to have difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, and often incorporates or imagines things he has seen on television or played in a computer game into real life, particularly zombies and the undead. One could question, though, just how many of Largo's tales are untrue, given that in the story the effects of some highly supernatural phenomenon (such as zombies and- Godzilla-esque monster invasions) have been observed. Nonetheless, when Largo tells his stories of fighting off hordes of hungry zombies or battling gigantic robots, the other characters typically shrug it off and chalk it up to his overactive imagination.

This is already covered in the Plot section. Its mentioning in the Plot section is very brief, however, and only takes up the space of 1 sentence. I agree that the possibility of truth in Largo's visions is noteworthy, but the space taken to say so was simply too much for a summary section. It wouldn't be such a huge issue if the article wasn't gearing up to go through FAC, but it is, and complying with suggestions made in peer review is absolutely necessary.

The biggest issue here is your speculation on Largo. First off, the sorceress from that section was, in fact, Piro's Endgames character, and the traitorous warrior was Miho's character. Miho was said to have abused the hidden "emotion" statistic of the game to manipulate people, which suggests that the reason for Piro's character following Miho's character into the meadow, and Piro's character saving the life of Miho's character, were some of the results of Miho's cheating. This all falls in line with the described event actually taking place in the world of Endgames, and being a revelation about the long-absent Endgames subplot (as well as detailing how Piro and Largo first met), as opposed to being an allegory of actual happenings. Not to say that your theory is impossible, only that it is just that - a theory, just as what I put forth is. Due to the already large size of Largo's summary section, there is no room to compare theories about his past while still complying with the suggestions made in peer review.

If it had not been suggested in peer review that the sections be small, two paragraph summaries, then there would be no problem with this. But as it was, this is far beyond my power to change. JimmyBlackwing 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now why you removed my contribution. Rather than being upset, I'm actually glad there are vigilant users like yourself that are dedicated to upholding the policies and guidelines of the site and, most importantly, making the best articles they can. Thanks for helping me sort it out, friend :D. -JoshM 5/20/2006

No problem. Glad I could help. JimmyBlackwing 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who first removed your addition, Pegasus1138 removed it the second time. What I did was change the page back to the version before you edited it, and that version was done by JimmyBlackwing, who was kind enough to explain the reasoning behind the revert to you. Hargle 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support This Article

Support this article and help it be able to become a featured article.

[edit] l33t

First of all, "MegaTokyo" is about as "mainstream" as elfreide jelinek. second of all, "l33t" has never been "mainstreamed" anywhere, certainly not the Internet. - Anonymous (please note this is a message from a registred user VRMaster; this is note put by me, --Kiba 02:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

I think Wikipedia has Megatokyo pinned. Good job, guys. You're as awesome as thinkgeek.com!

[edit] Image copyright

Mr. Gallagher is generally quite lenient with use of copies of his strip, as long as they're not sold and he is recognized as the author. Still, I agree that he should probably be asked for permission. --Slowking Man

Regarding the image, I don't think "should be regarded as fair use" is good enough unless Wikipedia policy states that it is. The author should probably be contacted, or else the image removed. Just my $0.02. -andrewsg at eml.cc, 30 MAR 2004

I disagree. Presenting just one strip as a sample cannot be regarded as reproducion and is a fair use. This is the same as quoting some text from books. --Taku 19:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

'Fair Use' explicitly protects the use of excerpted images or text from a larger work for critical work. An encyclopedic essay that uses a single page from a body of hundreds is clearly using an excerpt for illustrative purposes and is clearly acting within Fair Use. --Eric Burns, websnark.com 15-October-2004

If you want to I could ask him... but anyway Slowking Man is right: he explicitly said many times on the forums that the policy is "if name is credited and you're not getting money on it". Maybe a link to one of such posts would suffice? --Lapo Luchini 14:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As part of the megatokyo staff, I'm familiar with what sort of permission we grant on a blanket basis. One strip as an example is absolutely no problem, especially for a work like Wikipedia, that is non-profit and encyclopaedic. --Cortana (server admin for megatokyo)

I am the one who added the strip. I think there should be no issue of legality. Whatever the author says, this kind of use should be considered fair use. That said, we can certainly try to be polite and friendly, and it cannot hurt if we inform or ask Piro-san about this. You know he might even what strip he would like to see as an example. So if you can talk with him about this, that would be nice :) --Taku 12:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga Style?

So, Megatokyo is not a manga -- but it is an Original English Language manga. Now, that's funny. KyuuA4 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is technically a manga-style comic, there is no "manga style" (as manga is so diverse), only American and Japanese artists. If there is a difference anyway, I think this more strongly reflects an American style.

Well, it looks like manga for me, has those big eyes :), is black-and-white, takes place in Japan and google (http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Comics/Manga/Independent/Online_Manga/) also thinks it's a manga. --Taw

I would say this falls under the manga category due to its non-traditional page style, its on-going plot (as opposed to a number of situational jokes with no plot) and the clear influence of manga on the work itself (if not on the style). Secondly, there is a great variety in Japanese manga art styles alone (Compare the art of Love Hina to that of say Doraemon.) It might not be a JAPANESE manga, but it's certainly an "online manga." (I personally however would give little creedence to what ODP/dmoz.org classifies a comic). --Pipian

The shift from "four-panel" to "manga" over time seems to have been deliberate, which certainly should be highlighted in the entry. I've tweaked the criticism section slightly, in part to highlight the differences between those styles and also to make it clear that, while some have criticized the evolution, many more people have taken strongly to it. One has to be careful of critical bias not outweighing popular sentiment, after all. (And as I wrote the passage in question, it's my own critical bias I'm nerfing, here.) --Eric Burns

Every manga (or manga-influenced) artist goes through evolutions. Just read through some Ah My Goddess manga and see the evolutions in design styles there. KyuuA4 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as Gallagher himself doesn't call himself a manga-ka-- he aspires to be one, Megatokyo can't be called a manga although it tries to be one. Manga, in the original usage in Japanese, labels any published comic or sequential art as manga but in the English language term, manga points specifically to the Japanese comic. Doujinshi is also a label I've heard used for Megatokyo and frankly, the same applies. Doujinshi is fan manga but usually it's a manga by a fan based ona specific manga or anime franchise. Although some may say that the themes and concepts are clichés or homages to certain anime and manga series, it does not mean that Megatokyo is a doujinshi as well. Frankly, I think for accuracy's sake, Megatokyo and the many webcomics out there similar in style should be labelled as manga-influenced or manga-style but not actual manga. They are original works and imitate many of the forms that manga takes but it is not manga, by far. --kainee, 21:04, 03-30-2005

Well, just because most doujinshi is fanfic in effect, doesn't mean that all of it is. Heck, Masamune Shirow's Black Magic was originally published as doujinshi; the same is true of most of Yoshitoshi ABe's printed work, such as White Rain or the original Haibane Renmei stories. There's also the fact that Gallagher does refer to Megatokyo as doujinshi, right at the top of the web page. --Ray Radlein 02:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that argument imho is that manga itself needs to be defined. This is subjective, of course, but I don't view non-Japanese comics as manga-- even if they have the same sort of style. If anyone disagrees with that, then I'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I need to clarify the doujinshi definition which is basically amateur manga. Usually doujinshi develops through doujinshi circles in Japan which vary in quality from amateur level to near professional ones. This is a term that reflects a social custom in Japan and so, I believe it rightly belongs to the Japanese manga industry. Just as you can't really attach the term comic on manga because comic itself is an adjective that shows the roots of the American comic industry- the funny pages. The Japanese themselves were influenced by the European and American comics too, but they found their own style based on those influences and formed their own distinct image.

By the same extension, I really can't consider Megatokyo as doujinshi, regardless of whether or not Fred Gallagher himself thinks it is. Just because someone says something is, doesn't mean it's so. Again, doujinshi is a japanese term that the Japanese use to describe amateur manga. Just because someone outside of Japan uses the manga style, it doesn't mean that they are manga or doujinshi. What I'm saying is, Fred Gallagher is an American artist who has been heavily influenced by manga and doujinshi but it doesn't mean that just because he creates a comic similar in style that he belongs in that genre. It's like someone making an Impressionistic painting today and claiming that it is Impressionist. Of course, people can disagree with my opinion and I'm sure that they will. But I really don't see how Megatokyou can be labeled as a full manga or doujinshi. I would say that I see it as an American manga-style webcomic. --kainee, 22:09, 3-30-2005

Sadly, the categorization of art has never ever been "scientific". Thus, it is prone to subjectivity. KyuuA4 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "drawn in Manga style" sentence, shouldn't this link to "The manga style" on the Manga page rather than just linking the word Manga to the Manga page?

Gallagher ranted about this recently. Rather than further confusing the issue, maybe we should simply mention that its categorization is debatable and link to him?68.115.175.124 23:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

His rant stated that wether or not Megatokyo qualified as a manga was debatable. However, it is definitely drawn in the style of a manga, and he does not deny or dispute that.--OniOokamiAlfador 01:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, leaving this topic as "debatable" isn't clear, as opinions come from both camps. Personally, Megatokyo is a manga just because it looks like one and runs a story typically found in manga. I've run into many opinions involving the "Japanese origin" being a major requirement to manga. If a work is in the style of a manga, then why not call it a manga? Because the creator is not Japanese? Yea... sure. Right... KyuuA4 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, use of the term "manga-style" helps clear that up. In Japan, manga means all comics, whereas in America it only means Japanese comics. So there's a lot of discontinuity there. --Masamage 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character articles

Do we really need articles on the individual characters? It's kind of unneeded to make these articles when there isn't a lot of info to put in the articles in the first place. Some of the links that do work don't even go to articles on the actual characters. --LGagnon

I'm with you. Until these characters become notable outside of Megatokyo, we can leave the red links out. --PMC 04:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. First, without red links people will not know things need to be written; secondly, we have lots of pages about fictional characters; thirdly, this isn't a print encyclopedia with space constraints, it can be as comprehensive as it wants to be. (Including covering `trivial' matters; it is hardly our place to judge what is important.)

These things have been written: we have character bios in the article already. And many of the fictional character pages we have are unneeded, as these would be. And Wikipedia does judge what is important; multiple articles on the same subject aren't, and shouldn't be made. Such things hurt the respectibility of Wikipedia, and are thus supposed to be avoided. On a related note, the Miho article should be merged into this one. --LGagnon

I don't think so. The bios in the article are one-sentence summaries and many people have a lot to say about MT's characters; second, the Miho article is much larger than the one-sentence summaries and we'd have to write longer in-article bios for all of them (which isn't really bad, just inconvenient). We have lots of pages for obscure Trek characters, even ones nobody has heard of outside of Startrek geekdom. Personal vanity pages detract from Wikipedia; but IMHO if there is one person other than the author who thinks something is worth having an article about and devotes the time to make such an article, then it is worthy for inclusion. No way it's ever going to be a featured article, of course, but that doesn't matter.

We can't very well have a universal compendium of human knowledge without information about fiction. (Although I agree that data about fiction should be clearly marked - as this is.)

It would be much better to have longer in-article bios than several articles. It isn't inconvient at all; a simple click through the TOC can get you to wherever in the article you want, so it shouldn't be a problem for readers.

And just because we have several obscure Trek character articles doesn't mean we need several other obscure character articles. If the info in the Trek articles is so important, then it should become a "Characters from Star Trek" article instead of several separate ones. As for MT, there isn't enough characters to warrant such an article, so the bios should remain here.

And I agree we should have info on fiction. However, we don't need several articles on the same subject. An individual character only warrants an individual article if the character has a profound effect on society (which is still questionable; character articles tend to just repeat info from the source article). MT, while popular on the net, has not affected the society as a whole, and thus has no characters that are significant enough to get their own article. --LGagnon

`Profound effect on society'? That is the most absurd definition for `worthy-to-be-in-Wikipedia' I've ever heard. It certainly does not seem to be in the inclusive spirit of the Wiki; but if you'd like to show me that in one of the `philosophy' documents here...

This may be an inclusive encyclopedia, but not to a ridiculous extent. We don't need individual articles for every single fictional character that exists (the Trek guys are wrong in doing such), and we don't need them for every single major character in a work of fiction either. And I said that "profound effect on society" is still a debatable reasoning. Wikipedia does have guidelines for what should and shouldn't get an article, and I shouldn't have to point it out for you; check the Community Portal for that information.

And for future reference, please do not try to turn these discussions into flame wars. Insulting someone else's opinion is not productive in the least. --LGagnon

[edit] MT-Bashing

The strip has received quite a bit of criticism among other webcomic artists and fans. Should we at all address this? --Paul Soth

Maybe. What exactly did you have in mind? --LGagnon

Well, perhaps a brief coverage of common complaints with some rebuttal to even things out. One thing that I can't help but notice is that often MT bashing becomes a bandwagon affair. If anyone wants to hit this, I'd recommend looking at the messageboards of other webcomics for research. --Paul Soth

Bashing on message boards probably shouldn't be mentioned. Just about everything gets bashed on message boards. Maybe if you can find more professional opinions, then that would work, but random opinions from message boards wouldn't help. --LGagnon

Mr. Gallagher has received criticism from some fellow webcomic artists for being too haughty, having an irregular update schedule, drawing poorly, etc. I agree that message boards are largely irrelevant; few are exactly bastions of academia. --Slowking Man

Well, I do wonder if the criticism it receives nowadays is a result of MT being up among the top echelons of webcomics, particularly that of manga-inspired comics. In turn, it appears that a number of people attack it in order to appear avant-guard and the like. However, common complains include the story pacing, confusing direction, and it's fans. A good example of an anti-MT bandwagon can be found at: http://www.ponju.net/index.php?s=28d30eca5db5bfa38a9fdcefc4bb6792&showtopic=30816 -- Paul Soth

Actually, the core criticisms of Megatokyo focus more on the elaborate nature of its plot, the erratic update schedule, the conceptual shift from comic-strip to manga page, the greater emphasis on story, and the slow pacing. While there is no doubt some criticism leveled out of jealousy or because of Megatokyo's popularity, much of the criticism stems from real issues surrounding Megatokyo and its production. --Eric Burns, Websnark.com 15-October-2004

Don't forget all the ire directed twards the fans as well. And naturally, a lot of anti-otaku sentiment comes into play as well. --Paul Soth 15:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to acknowledge criticisms, why not just take the page down? I know of more people who dislike Megatokyo for one reason or another than are actually fans of it. There are a bevy of anti-megatokyo sites out there (http://www.fuckmegatokyo.com) as it is.

Okay, so the link in my last comment no longer exists. Anyway, if you look at many of the other major webcomic's pages (sluggy freelance, penny arcade (comic), PvP) none of them have a section on criticisms. Granted, Gallagher is under a lot of criticism but why is there a need to highlight that? The Penny Arcade page doesn't talk about the Strawberry Shortcake incident, the PvP page doesn't talk about how Scott Kurtz tends to be the webcomic whipping boy, etc.

Why not just relabel the section Criticism? It's called Criticism and Praise, but I only detect 2 sentences that praise anything related to the comic. I can see where the criticism is coming from talking about frustration with Gallagher's infrequent updates (though I have no problem with it), and issues with Caston's departure.

However, I do take issue with the fact that people claim that the comic isn't funny anymore. We've already established the fact that the comic is not a gag-a-day comic anymore - I would say it's more of a comedy-drama. Several people I know read the comic because they're interested in the story/characters, not because they're looking for a laugh. Granted, humor is still appreciated, but just because this is a webcomic doesn't mean it has to be funny every day (intentionally or otherwise).

Similarly, the claim that Gallagher is indulging in Mary Sueism is true by definition - Piro is a stand-in for Gallagher, has many similar personality traits, and certainly any fictional story is a fantasy of its author. However, I think the entry (or those mt-bashers who the entry refers to) are certainly biased against Gallagher. The PA characters are stand-ins for their respective authors, but certainly no one believes them to be violent people.

I agree with the above poster - if PA and the lightning rod that is Scott Kurtz don't have criticism sections, then why should Megatokyo? All this does is add fuel to the mt-bashing bandwagon. I think this section should be removed entirely, while the plot section sees an expansion. That would certainly be far more relevant to anyone seeking information rather than opinions on this subject anyway. Berselius 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alike others above it seems, the feeling I'm left with after reading the page is that someone doesn't like Fred Gallagher. It doesn't seem so much a critique about Megatokyo directly but rather what Fred does and has done with it. I think the Criticism and so called 'praise' section should either be removed or completely edited to actually include a fair amount of praise in comparison with the criticism. It may just be me, but I get the feeling that the person who wrote it is a reader who preferred MT before Rodney left. Fair enough, but on wikipedia the writers personal preference should not come out so strong. Make a website, start a forum instead. Leave just the facts here and let everyone make their own decision from there. -Nicole

01:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe there is more MT-critique then praise simply because there's more reason to give critique? Let's face it, there are some things very "out-of-whack" with Megatokyo as a comic, despite the fact there are a few good things about it. MT has got some serious problems and quirks and there's no reason why we shouldn't comment on them. What else do you suggest? That we ignore some bad points on purpose to make the comic look better? Maybe change the wording a little so it looks better on the comic and the author? If you want the general opinion on the comic here to improve, you should talk to the author, not us. :: DarkLordSeth 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think, the way the article is written, it has a lot of "Some people dislike X" when there are just as many people who like MT that way. I think the truly NPOV thing to do is just say "Megatokyo is X" except with truly opinionated (yet important) statements like the "After Rodney left, Largo seems like an afterthought to some." Nifboy 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we need to consider the "average joe" perspective when we run around claiming what people IN GENERAL like and dislike. The majority of MT readers like prolonged storylines, slow progression and love Icosahedrons. If they didn't the majority of 'em wouldn't be reading MT in the first place. (Personally, I'm too damn curious to stop reading it...) Thing is though, that the majority of the people outside of the MT really dislike MT's style, story, pace and character involvement. If Megatokyo was syndicated and printed in a newspaper (and thus be made available to the "average joe") it would fail. Hard. Precisely because of the reasons that are mentioned in the article. :: DarkLordSeth 19:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm saying that we don't want to make any claims about what people IN GENERAL like and dislike, since that road is filled with weasel words and other hairy POV issues. Just say what MT actually is and cover some of the major issues. --Nifboy 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubblegum Crisis?

The city in Bubblegum Crisis is also called "Megatokyo"... should there be another article or even a disambiguation?

Is there a need for such an article? I doubt there is so much info on the city that it needs to have its own article. I suggest you just put info on it in the article for the series. --LGagnon 15:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems proper to make a mention of origin of the term "Megatokyo" in this listing. Fred and Rodney did not coin it, only popularized it. Proper credit should be given to the Bubblegum Crisis anime for introducing the world to "Megatokyo". -- Berus

Do Bubblegum Crisis really invent "Megatokyo"? I think Megatokyo is used like the The city of tokyo was destoryed either by nuclear war or something else. It was than rebuilt into a bigger and better city. Before including that, someone need to verify if it was Bubblegum Crisis that invent the world "Megatokyo". --Kiba 04:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the sort of thing that, unless Rodney explicitly stated he was referencing BGC when he registered the site, could be conceived without being aware of its use in BGC. I mean, it's not like the "Mega" prefix is uncommon. --Nifboy 04:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The main villain in BGC is named "Largo", and both Rodney and Fred seem to be fans of classic anime such as BGC. I think it's safe to say that they got the word from Bubblegum Crisis. (I also seem to recall one of them saying so, but I couldn't tell you where I read that.) --DenisMoskowitz 14:47, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I took the name "MegaTokyo" from BGC. --Rcaston

Thanks, Rodney. DenisMoskowitz 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western order

Megatokyo uses Western order: [1]. --WhisperToMe 23:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to say this could we explain what it means? Because you lost me (I'm an ameteur). --RJFJR 04:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

In the West, names are usually given in given name-family name order. For example, in Frank Sinatra, Frank is the given name and Sinatra is the family name, and we say Mr. Sinatra. However, some countries in the East, especially Japan, use the opposite name order (family name-given name). For instance, in Takahashi Rumiko, Rumiko is the given name and Takahashi is the family name, and she is called Ms. Takahashi. My explanation probably is not very good, so see Japanese name and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for more information. --Josh 05:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's what this is talking about. I thought it was something about what order the panels of a comic page are read in. Thank you. --RJFJR 12:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't always use Western order: [2]. Note that it says 'Nanasawa Kimiko' in this picture, not 'Kimiko Nanasawa'. I think that after a while, Fred started using the Japanese order.--Tally Solleni 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the comic is somewhat inconsistent -- which could reflect the variety in characters as much as anything else. But it's been my experience that the fans generally use Japanese order, and Fred has been keeping to it more lately, so it seems the best choice. 71.57.111.238 07:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character pages/Forum details

IMHO, both character pages and the details on the forum should be moved to seperate subpages. Very nice, very clean and a very wikipedia-like way of representing stuff. The character don't justify articles of their own and the forums really should be moved to their own seperate subpage as well. Loads of people love the comic but couldn't possibly care less about the forums and the associated community. If this post doesn't get flamed to bits or doesn't have too many people disagreeing with it, I'll eventually move the existing character articles to subpages of the main Megatokyo article, along with the specifics about the forums. --DarkLordSeth 22:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Trim" the forum stuff down, but leave the useful stuff in the article. I've always thought it a bit useless, but it's nice to have at least a short explanation of the major boards. We don't need admin names or the names of frequent posters for particular boards, and the so-called notable threads and clans sections have got to go.

I'm thinking of a nice little list with MT main characters, along with a links to seperate subpages for more character information. As for the forums, a little tidbit of intro will do, with a link to another subpage for detailed information. --DarkLordSeth 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The forums don't deserve a subpage. Very few if ANY forums at all deserve a subpage. (And I hope to Wales you mean subpage as in Forums of Megatokyo and not Megatokyo/Forums) Trim the information down into a line (MAX two) per forum. KEEP said information in the main Megatokyo article. Trash the stupid tidbits about each forum's admins, prevalant posters, clans and "notable threads". Pointless. Don't need 'em. --Premeditated Chaos 07:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it has been suggested that the forum tidbits should be trimmed down to the important parts. Which means that the entire forums section pretty much has to go, aye. But I was thinking of using Megatokyo/Miho Tohya style subpages, but I sense a certain sense of non-agreement on that bit. Just seems like a nice and clean way of solving things; Besides giving the Wikipedia a nice hierarchal index of MT, it would also satisfy the people who think that characters of "less-then-famous" works do not deserve their own article. Would like to hear your point on this. --DarkLordSeth 12:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. We don't use subpages. From the Glossary: "Do not use subpages in the main article space." As well, Wikipedia:Subpages gives some background on subpages. Essentially, they've been found unworkable. Don't use them. As for the forums, I think every forum should have a little sentence description. That's all they need. For example, "Ask Shoujo Manga: A forum where users can come to seek answers to their problems in life." (Or some such.) We need to get rid of the notable threads and clan sections, period. It's useless, as are names of admins and frequent posters. Basically, I want to pare down the forums section so that each forum gets a line of description and not a separate section with a header. We should leave it in Megatokyo, it definitely does not deserve Megatokyo forums. Not yet. So, restated for clarity: delete all unnotable crap. Trim down forum descriptions. Do not split into forum article. -- Premeditated Chaos 02:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, never came across that little tidbit before. Ah well, guess the whole subpage idea can be scrapped then. Would have sworn I read on some other pages that subpages were practical but I don't want to get TOO involved in the community, considering all the mud that gets flung around and all that kind of stuff. I might not be too up-to-date on things like this, so bear with me, aye? Anyways, I'll give the article a good beating with the cleanup stick soon, which will prolly include the removal of the entire forum section. If people really want to know what the forums are about, they'll just visit them. Waiting a bit longer so others can voice their concerns as well. --DarkLordSeth 11:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I think we should keep a sort of quick reference to the boards. Just the board name and a description if it isn't obvious. "Ask Shoujo Manga: Megatokyo's version of Dear Abby" type descriptions, nothing major. As for the community, don't be scared of us. You'll find a lot more WikiLove getting tossed around here than mud. *grins* We don't bite too bad. --Premeditated Chaos 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe of the busier boards and/or non-descriptive ones. Just took a look at the forums and all of them seem pretty descriptive of themselves. Would be a bit pointless to add lines like "Story Discussions: Discussions about the Megatokyo storyline.", right? Just a little tidbit of information that the forums are active and well populated, along with a nice external link to the forums themselves. The forum names themselves are pretty much self-explanatory and describing what's hot, what's not and who and what is popular on the forums is all very NPOV anyways. One person's popular thread might be another person's reason to claw his or her eyes out. As for the community bit, I was referring to the MT community. I got a bit more faith in the Wikipedia community, because it isn't filled with a small army of rabid fanboys and fangirls. Still, best not to get too involved, methinks. I tend to be more or less of a catalyst regarding "mud slinging" incidents. :P --DarkLordSeth 02:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. So in short: We'll leave the names of the boards, along with an external link to the main boards page only. We'll take out all the board descriptions. We should leave short, one-line descriptions for non-obvious board names such as "Ask Shoujo Manga". We'll also remove anything regarding "notable posters", "notable threads", "clans" and "admins". Add note that the forums are active and very well-populated. (By the way, I think you mean POV up there...NPOV is neutal point of view, and "what's hot what's not" type information is not neutral =) ) How's that sound to you? --Premeditated Chaos 07:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, especially the bits about notable threads and the like. And yes, POV instead of NPOV. I got an excuse, it was late! Really! I'm innocent! --DarkLordSeth 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol... Don't worry about it. I do some weird things when I'm up late too. Arite so now that we're agreed... we can set to work on the forums! Score. =D --[[User:Premeditated Chaos| Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I just trimmed the sections down a little. How does it look? I kind of tried to pare them down into the most basic of details. As you can see I stopped halfway through...its late and I have to get off soon, so I figured I'd just quit and leave a note. Good, bad, or ugly? --[[User:Premeditated Chaos| Premeditated Chaos 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, saw it. Nice and lean forum descriptions now! I suggest trimming down a bit more, removing the actual headers considering they take up alot of space. Thinking about something like a list with bolded/strong emphasis on the name and a small description in plain text. Like we currently have for characters! I'll go smack the article around a bit more with the pretty stick after this. --DarkLordSeth 19:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh! The headers. *blinks* Its that low-flying WikiLove, totally makes you forget everything. I thought there was something I wasn't changing that I should have. =P Otherwise, it looks very cool. =D -- Premeditated Chaos 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I have that too with WikiLove, hurts like heck. You feeling better yet? :) By the way, going to clean up the forums section a bit more later today. There's still some fluff left that has to be dealt with and it almost looks perfect! I'll be happy once I can cram down one forum description per line of text! --DarkLordSeth 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Merge any and all character subpages into Megatokyo and trim all ridiculously pointless details. (An example off the top of my head being something like "Many fans speculate that pizza makes Tohya evil." And so on.) Only when the the character descriptions become obscenely bloated with encyclopedic information ("Tohya likes pizza and has explicitly said it makes her evil" as opposed to "Many fans speculate that pizza makes Tohya evil") should we consider splitting the characters into a new page. --Premeditated Chaos 23:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MT characters are not well-known enough really to deserve more then a subpage. Besides, I don't really consider the idea of Miho being evil because of pizzas is really quite encyclopedic. It's more likely because of her posessing the Necrowombicon, anyways. --DarkLordSeth 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's almost exactly what I said. Any MT characters with separate articles (I think only Tohya at the moment, but I could be wrong) should first be merged into Megatokyo. Then if the characters section OVERALL somehow gets TOO big for Megatokyo, we should split it into Characters from Megatokyo. ONLY if it gets too big. NO MT character should have their own page. As for the pizza example, I was pulling something out of nowhere. It was an analogy. Encyclopedic information is stuff that's explicitly stated in the canon of the comic, OR stuff that's been explicitly stated by the author. (For example, that Junpei used to be the ninja at Japanese Customs) Non-encyclopedic stuff would be fan speculation, or fanfiction, or stuff the author joking about. (For instance, a statement like "Many fans speculate Junpei was the Customs ninja because..."). -- Premeditated Chaos 07:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ahhh, okay then, just wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing 'ere. :) --DarkLordSeth 12:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree with me then? To reiterate more clearly: Merge any and all character pages into Megatokyo. Only split them out into Megatokyo characters if the section gets too big to fit on the page and nothing can be trimmed without harming the encyclopedic value of the description. Yes/no? --Premeditated Chaos 02:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. However, only main characters will be put on the article itself. Characters from minor or forgotten storylines should pretty much be ignored. Quality over quantity. --DarkLordSeth 11:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone with a name and more than two lines of dialogue should be in the article. We are trying to provide something of a complete and handy reference to the story, and if we lack information on some characters its neither handy nor complete. They don't need a huge description, really. A line or two will do. Really minor characters can of course be ignored until they do something important. --Premeditated Chaos 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problem is, MT got more characters then usual. Something to do with Fred creating a dozen barely-related storylines and focussing for weeks on one storyline while completely neglecting another, coupled with the inability to follow a schedule. If we were to give every character that had more then two lines in the comic a small descripting, there wouldn't be much to clean up. Hell, we'd prolly have to expand the characters section instead. Just Piro, Largo && Seraphim should do for now. If it really matters to people, I suggest dumping it all in Megatokyo Characters or something similiar. --DarkLordSeth 02:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, just "Piro Largo and Seraphim" will not do it. What about Ping? Tohya? Erika? The Idol-chick-whose-name-I-can't-recall-right-now? They're important too. If we really can't fit it all in the article, let's resort to putting it into Megatokyo characters. We really can't just remove characters that are vital to entire storylines. (The whole last arc was, after all, pretty much centered on the Idol chick) I'm all for splitting it and cleaning it up. Shall we? --[[User:Premeditated Chaos|Premeditated Chaos 07:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "idol chick" IS Erika, you dolt! --Strannik 23:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

/rolls eyes. Sorry, I forgot that people aren't allowed to make mistakes. Excuse my imperfection, oh great one. --[[User:Premeditated Chaos|Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the problem is that MT has so dang MANY "important" characters. Fred might be a good artist but he's a pretty poor writer IMHO for letting the comic end up in a sort of time-expanded limbo. One day in the comic takes roughly 2 or 3 months of drawings; makes for extremely slow progression of the comic. This, combined with the 4 or 5 or so different storylines running at the same time, really doesn't do a lot of good for anyone other then the absolute main characters. The underage schoolgirls only feature in the "drawing lessons/bookbag" storyline, one that pretty much ended. (or so it seems) The weird goth girl and Ping mainly feature in the "Endgames" storyline, with an occasional showing in the "Great Teacher Largo" and "Idol" storylines, though the latter two having become pretty much the same now. We should really make mention of several main characters that appear in all storylines and move the rest to Megatokyo Characters IMHO, because we otherwise end up with the same clutter that we have now. And be careful, the 'WikiLove' is flying low today, courtsey of Strannik. --DarkLordSeth 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

/is smacked upside the head by low-flying WikiLove. Thank you, Mr. Strannik. As for the characters: let's have consistency. If we move some of them to Megatokyo characters, we should just move all of them for simplicity, and leave a note at Megatokyo. --Premeditated Chaos 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gods of Heaven and Earth, the drama, THE DRAMA ;)

Seriously, mates, I may have been a bit crass, but, really, you shouldn't take it this hard.

As for characters, maybe we should make separate pages for major characters and move all minor ones into a single separate article. Personally, transpanting the whole section just to save some space doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --Strannik 18:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No Megatokyo character is popular or mainstream enough to deserve a separate article only for themself. (Such as Tohya Miho or Ping-chan) We should either leave them all on the page (I don't like that) or move them all to Characters of Megatokyo. --Premeditated Chaos 18:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ooo, that looks painfull... *hands Premeditated Chaos an ice pack* There you go! :D Anyways, alright, for consistency's sake we'll leave the large list of characters intact, trim down on info a bit and merge already existing character pages into Megatokyo Characters. Then, once additional character information becomes available, people to write it down in Megatokyo Characters ( or whatever capitalisation is preferred on here ) and use nice Megatokyo Characters#Miho Tohya style links, which can be cunningly disguised through the use of pipelining, which would make it look like this: Miho Tohya. This will leave the character list on the main article intact and consistent, will remove and prevent every character ending up with their own article and it will be nice and clear. And we can add minor characters there as well, as is suggested by Strannik. How's about that? On a different note, I should type faster; you already edited it while I was trying to save changes! Ngh! --DarkLordSeth 19:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yay for ice packs =) Brilliant plan. I'll go make Megatokyo characters and start merging. --Premeditated Chaos 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll go help out by cleaning up unimportant bits on the main page later, maybe work on the individual characters at Megatokyo characters... Unless you're planning to give every character their own header, we'll have to use some other trick to allow linking from Megatokyo directly to the correct character. Something involving DIV tags with IDs. I'll get into it once we agree on the new article, 'kay? PS, can I have my icepack back now? :P --DarkLordSeth 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The majority of editing to both Megatokyo and Megatokyo characters is done now. Well, msot of it, anyways. Anyone got some nice constructive criticism on the current layout of either pages? :) --DarkLordSeth 00:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm just an unregistered user (therefore my opinion doesn't count), but could you guys make an article dedicated exclusively to the Megatokyo forums ala Something Awful Forums? It was very interesting to read about it.

Opinion does matter, actually. Anyways, I don't think it's the very best of ideas, considering Megatokyo is quite a niche thing on the internet. Sure, it's nice and relatively well known in it's own niche, but Something Awful along with their forums are so much bigger, well-known and notorious that they warrent their own article. The SA forums produce a notable stream of photoshops and comedy every week while the MT forums produce... Well... Nothing. This would make it hard to justify an article about the MT forums, seperate from the main MT page. --DarkLordSeth 12:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There may be a good reason for this, but I'm curious as to why the "Party System" and "Hard Questions Room" "no longer exist on the boards."? They still look very much alive on the MT Forums to me. Is it because they are only accessable if you're logged in as a registered MT Forums user? Just curious. --Baltakatei 04:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure, that's what it said on the article, but change it if it's true. --[[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll get onto it; I think I got an old unused MT forum accoutn somewhere in cold-storage. Otherwise I'll just reg one to see what they are currently up to over there. Also... *pokes PMC with a maple tree twig!* --DarkLordSeth 16:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pages Tohya Miho or Ping-chan should be deleted now since they are no longer maintaned and are both unlinked from article pages. However, the talk pages still need to be moved.

[edit] History

Some interesting history released by Fred on his rant. See Saturday - January 15, 2005 Rant, Strip ID 661 -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried to read it but Fred's endless whining made my eyes bleed and caused my spleen to implode... Ugh... --DarkLordSeth 11:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disgruntled fans. They're a plague, mate. --Strannik 06:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about but I can't help thinking of Steve Irwin now, because you ended your line with "mate"... :( --DarkLordSeth 11:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo characters versus Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist

The Fullmetal Alchemist article also is going through a similar Character section trimming that this article went through a while ago. I am now wondering about naming conventions: from what I gather on this talk page, everyone used a link to Megatokyo characters so the page ended up being there. However, the Fullmetal Alchemist article links to Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist, which is obviously named in a different style. Is there something in Naming Conventions that addresses this, and if not, should we standardize Character Page namings? --Ambush Commander 20:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have a naming convention. I've also seen "on," "in," "within," and "from" used in character page titles, so the case could probably be made for just "X characters" but I don't like that because the title is used like an adjective. --Nifboy 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at WikiProject Anime and manga. It involves these kinds of naming conventions. --Josh 15:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd criticism

Finally, some critics complain that the fictional Japan in Megatokyo does not resemble real-life Japan [...]

Is it really necessary that the article records inane criticism such as this, complete with a discussion? I can easily accept that controversial views of the comic are reported here, but this is like saying, "some people resent that Casablanca is set in the time of World War II". --SKopp 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) character

Delete. Now that the section in question has been deleted and reverted with the comment "such criticism has been made," I have to ask who has actually made such a comment, and why is such criticism even worth mentioning in the first place? --Nifboy 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

In hindsight, perhaps I reverted your changes a bit hastily. I researched those claims a bit more, and found that they were originally made by Shibboleth and seem to have been expanded by others since then. However, I cannot find any discussion, facts, or references supporting his claims on any talk pages or their histories, and it was one of his first edits as a registered user, so I must conclude that they were a misguided mistake and acquiesce. Please accept my apologies. --Josh 05:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible external link

A group of people from the Megatokyo Story Discussions board are preparing a wiki on MT itself called Wikitokyo, located at [3]. (The wiki currently being linked is for the community that's grown up around the forums; it doesn't document the comic itself.) Is it okay to link this? I'd normally just do it, but I'm one of the WT admins, so I don't want to be accused of vanity linking. —Brent Dax 17:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are worse things to be linking to. --Nifboy 18:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aye. If'n it be a wiki with actual content on MT itself, go for it. --maru 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

I've merged all info on the characters on Megatokyo characters. For what it's worth, I find the article too negative, focusing mainly on various criticisms against MT. --Radiant_* 12:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article seems to focus on the criticism more than the story. I believe we should create another section on this article and add in the info on the characters and how they are in the story (example: Kimiko's relationship with Piro). --User:Psi edit

Perhaps a "Plot" section, similar to those found on the Sluggy Freelance article and countless fan sites? --Nifboy 03:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Erika" - Katakana or Hiragana?

An anonymous user changed Hayasaka Erika's name from えりか to エリカ. The difference is that the former is in Hiragana and the latter in Katakana. I believe that we saw hiragana used in the comic at some point - if so, the change should be reverted. (It would also be strange for a Japanese person to use katakana for their name, even if it's based on an English name.) Can anyone confirm that hiragana is correct? --DenisMoskowitz 14:50, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

To give an example, we see the name written in Hiragana in strip no. 420. Reverted the change. --SKopp 23:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was the image I knew I had seen. Thank you. --DenisMoskowitz 18:13, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

It appears in Hiragana also in strip #641. Hangfromthefloor 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums again

I've reworded the paragraph on the forums. Change if you don't like it. However, I intentionally removed the following passage:

Fred Gallagher estimated that perhaps 80% of Megatokyo Forums users are not fans of the comic. [4]

That was a throwaway line Fred uttered on IRC in a discussion about whether a moderator needs to be a reader of the comic. I don't think it warrants mentioning as an "official" estimation. It's doubtful he has any way of determining such a number anyway.

Also, I suggest removing the list of sub-forums and replacing it with a link to forums.megatokyo.com. If someone wants to know what forums there are, they can just go there and look for themselves, no? (Unless the forums happen to be offline ...) --SKopp 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Please? --Nifboy 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Tried that before, PMC will have me hanged if I touch the forums section again... :( --DarkLordSeth 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot needed?

Seriously, are we writing an encyclopedia article on Megatokyo or are we writing a plot summary here? This is not the place to put up some details about the plot, regardless of what the Feutured Article people claim. We're aiming for a good article here, not to win some form of WP beauty-pageant. --DarkLordSeth 09:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me suggesting that Megatokyo should have more details about the plots. I admits mistakes., because I begin think it was a bad suggestion I made. --Kiba 12:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea isn't bad, it's just overdone. (Or at least the versions I saw a few hours ago were...) A good plot summary would mention who the main characters are, who the supporting characters are, give a small description of quirks and non-canon oddities (For example, DPDs, Endgames, those horrible Dom comics, etc) and explain the setting. This should be... About a paragraph at max and nto involve actual storylines. This way we give a nice short bit of information that includes the important bits while we leave out the storyline itself. Maybe an idea? --DarkLordSeth 16:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was a wee bit too detailed. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a replacement for reading the actual comic, so there's no point in reiterating every single event here. I replaced it with a more concise version. It's not very good yet and still needs lots of fleshing-out. In particular the roles of Miho, Erika, and Kimiko must be described (but please not in too much detail). But I hope this at least sets a better frame of elaborateness. --SKopp 16:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Kevin and Kell and Sluggy Freelance for how a detailed plot summary might work out in the long run (although I'm biased, I wrote most of the latter). I think MT needs it more than the others, even if it should have its own page at Megatokyo plot. --Nifboy 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not generally opposed to a chapter-by-chapter rundown. Considering that Sluggy Freelance is much more eventful than MT, I don't quite see why MT needs more, though. I'm a little suspicious of this subpage thing, might be overkill. --SKopp 19:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where to do add this?

Here is a article by ICv2 http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/5241.html On the list, you can see Megatokyo rank in 10 place so that make the comic within the top ten selling manga properties in the United States.

The Megatokyo article say Megatoyko is a popluar webcomic. The ICv2 articles prove Megatoyko is popluar. The question is where I should add it or it should not be mention in the Megatokyo article at all? --Kiba 8 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Typically stuff like that is reserved for an "awards" section, along with its winning the 2002 "best writing," "best serial," "best dramatic" and "best overall" awards in the Cartoonist's Choice Awards, as well as the 2003 award for "Outstanding environment design." Although you could also fit them in the "praise/criticism" section, where the criticism apparently outnumbers the praise. --Nifboy 8 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I just rewrote parts of the article for NPOV issues, and a few ambiguous statements. In the process I tried to clarify the Criticism and praise section but became bogged down in it so work in there is sparse. the diff of all my recent edits to that extent is here for easy reference. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C ----- 07:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Omake (in particular 'Circuitry')}

^{Should there be a mini-section for MegaTokyo's omakes? You know, about GTA: Otaku City and most recently the rather different (and a bit befuddling) Circuitry. Just a thought. --Perks 16:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Maybe a small tidbit about the non-canon side-stories would be nice but writing them all out wouldn't be a clever thing imho. First of all there's so damn many of them. Second of all there will be many more to come. Third of all, they aren't substantial enough. So just a small little bit of info about the side stories in general would be good. --DarkLordSeth 12:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Which part need Improvement?}

^{I wonder if we fixed all the objections in the FAC yet. It seem to me that Megatokyo went through some trimming and need expansion on some section. This time, I am intending to add more useful contents about Megatokyo instead of the horriable mess it once was or still was. I am thinking of adding section about Megatokyo book sales in their best ranking so far.}

^{I could like the opinions of editors who have edited this articles to give some review on this article. So we can improve it to Feature Article standard, and eventually to Feature Article status. --Kiba 01:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{Based on how much the article has changed in the past two months, I'd say the article is much better than it was. My only complaint is the paragraph which essentially accuses Piro of pedophilia, no matter how softly the accusation is put; it feels like a leftover of some senseless MT-bashing rather than a legitimate objection. As it is currently described (a "tenuous interpretation") I'm not sure if it merits inclusion at all anymore. Nifboy 02:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{There's a bit too much junk floating around in the external links section. Looks kinda messy to me. I'd get rid of the translations ( All except the german one are hopelessly outdated. ) and some completely unrelated external links like the Creative Writing DataBase, the MT Fan Network (no longer operational), Rodney Caston's weblog ( Unrelated to MT. ), the MT Renga-kas ( Whatever the hell they do, it sure aint related to MT. ) and the MegaGear site. ( See item 2. ) :: DarkLordSeth 01:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{MegaGear site is a Megatokyo store and operated by Fred himself. If the Megatokyo forum get mentioned, MegaGear should be in there too. Peer review didn't help a lot apparently.--Kiba 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{On a scale of one to ten, I'd say MegaGear is a notch more notable than, say, the PvP merchandise page, but still not notable enough by itself. Nifboy 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{Does linking to it add value to the article, though? It doesn't add any content, it's already easily accesible through the main MT link, it's a seperate commercial site and it's unrelated to this article apart from a single unlinked mention. Get rid of it to clean up the external links section, I say. :: DarkLordSeth 01:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{I prune some links like the stuff that is already in the reference section and a site that is no longer a fansite. I don't brother pruning the tranlation section because I feel it add values. I also added some contents that need referncing. Hunting for Megatokyo rants to reference to is going to be a pain in the ass, but someone have to do it. What I planned to do is add the annoucment stuff for MegaGear, and looking for bookscan ranking for comics to see what I can find about the book sales of Megatokyo. If you guys think we are ready for another nomination for Feature Articles, than go ahead nominate Megatokyo for it. --Kiba 00:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] ia:Megatokyo}

^{ia:Megatokyo is currently Article of the Week over at ia:. If anyone wants to update it, or add more information, that would be great. Almafeta 10:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)}

^{Is that anything like a featured article? If it is, there is no notice on the page. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)}

^{I found what I think is the featured article link: ia:Wikipedia:Articulos del septimana. If it is a featured article on that site, I'll add a star next to it's interwiki link. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)}

^{I saw Megatokyo article over there. I cannot imagine it actually being a feature article in it current state. o.O--Kiba 23:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Removed pedophilia sentence}

^{I removed the following sentence: "However, it should be noted that pedophilia is still illegal in Japan as well as in the United States, where Gallagher lives."}

^{This sentence was problematic on many levels.}

1. ^{It is factually incorrect. Pedophilia is not illegal anywhere; molesting children is.}
3. ^{The age of consent in Japan is 13 (though many prefetures put it at 16 or 18), making the sentence misleading at best.}
4. ^{Most importantly, the sentence is simply unnecessary, and I don't see what it accomplishes there. Is it saying that Megatokyo is illegal? Clearly false. Is it implying that it is immoral? That assertion is already made in the first sentence of the paragraph. Is it making a point about pedophilia? Then it belongs in the pedophilia article, not in the Megatokyo one. --Ashenai (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Questionable addition and Comment}

^{I feel this recent addition}

^{Many people also note the frequent existance of Gallagher's 'Dead Piro Days' and other ways to avoid having to produce the comic on an actual schedule. Some feel that Caston's departure signalled and end to a contsant running story.}

^{is questionable addition. Any opinion on it will be great. This addition I felt is an attempt to make the article POV (I could be wrong).}

^{I felt this accusation is false among others objections but it is really not citable. My main grudge; people felt that Megatokyo do not update frequently. Fred did update without fail at least 96% of the time. Here the ironic parts, most of the off topic scripts are in Megatokyo's FIRST YEAR. Source of information is here [5]. Again it isn't citable. Numbers don't lie when people don't lie or try to distort the statistics, in this case I believe the author is not a lier. Again, it isn't citable because it is published in a livejournal but not by a notable and trustworthy institution. So Megatokyo do not update frequently is a crisistism without evidence.--Kiba 15:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Upload another comic.}

^{Hey I was wondering if I should up load a chapter 1 comic so we could show the compareson to the present comic we have featured. -- Psi edit}

• ^{Would be too messy, I'm already against the current comic sample being up on WP, anyways. If you could find/make a few (say.. three) panels that best illustrate the differences between chapter 1 and chapter 7, then it would be nice. Take a few good examples and put them side by side in an image or something like that... :: DarkLordSeth 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)}

^{You know what? Ill just make a section and describe the changes of comic and then later I might upload an image. -- Psi edit}

^{[edit] Is pt:Megatokyo a featured article?}

^{I noticed at es:Megatokyo and fr:Megatokyo both list pt:Megatokyo as a featured article. Can anyone verify this? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Characters Subsection}

^{One thing that I would like to see is a more accessible characters page. The Charcaters link is hidden inside of the plot section and It can take me a few moments to find it. I feel that in order to make the page more practical we should restablish a character subsection and prehaps that is a summery of some of the information on the characters page. This would be more similar to the characters section on many Animes. Prehaps also spliting the Characters page up into different sections such as major minor and omake thearter would work better. This was one of the sticking points people had when I put the article in for its first featured article submision and when the article was put back in for its second. I need opinions as to how to do this before actually implementing it Vcelloho 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{We might need a more visable character subsection. I dont know about doing anything else other than that though. -- Psi edit 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{I went ahead and made a potential change. I also created a template. I feel that this would be improved by spliting up the Characters section through Main, Minor and Groups, Alternant and Omake Theater. Vcelloho 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Character Template}

^{I redirected the template links to independent Megatokyo character files the old page still exists but I feel that the new links are better Vcelloho 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Character with backpack}

^{Who is the character with the turtle backpack? Chris 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{Give me a link and Ill answer. Im a large Megatokyo fan. -- Psi edit 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)}

^{He means Miho — as a larger and more visible Mt fan -- Sparky 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)}

^{Thank you so much. The reason I ask is, the character was based on my Wife, and since her hit-and-run I couldn't find the character's name. Domo arigato. Chris 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Bounty board challenge}

^{I've put up $50 dollars to donate to the Wikimedia foundation if this can be turned into a featured article by the end of the year. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] translations

from the fact that there was an isolated ref link it looks like their used to be a section for listing the languages Megatokyo has been translated into but has since been removed. Some more info should probably be added about the translation languages. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character

I disagree with the modification in the character subsection removing the links and simply routing the character pages all to the bulk megatokyo characters page. I find that for a person who is unaquainted with megatokyo it would be much more dificult to look down to that subsection then have to find that particular character on the bulk page. Linking through the seperate characters subsections and using the template as a navigator bar was much simpler and overall better system for navigating through the character pages Vcelloho 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• never mind the only remaining problewm is that dom and ed are not on the main character page Vcelloho 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Do people feal that this article is ready to be put up for featured article status? I think it is and if others think that it is this article should be put back up for Featured Article Submission. Vcelloho 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it could make it through FA. Personally, I'd like to see the plot beefed up, but that'd probably kill its FA chances. >_< --maru (talk) contribs 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Who will work on the objections? For Megatokyo to pass, someone must address all objections during the FA trail.--Kiba 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely not up to FA standards, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm getting to the point where I can't find any more changes to make (I actually work on this article a lot, just when I'm logged out). I suggest sending it through Peer Review again, in order to get a better idea of what its problems are at this time. JimmyBlackwing 09:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in "Criticism and praise"

The "Criticism and praise" section is absolutely filled with weasel words. There is only one source cited in the entire thing, with the rest being a pile of opinions given form with what amounts to quotes from Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Something needs to be done about it if this article is going to be suggested for FA. Hargle 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the the section of the article itself is subjective in nature(speaking about an audience's reception), I'm not sure what the issue is, aside from lack of sources.--Vercalos 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/08/you_had_me_and.html
this artilce could be used to answer a great deal of the missing citations in the Reception Section. However it has been cited once putting mulitpule links to the same page seems silly and adding aditional links to this citation will mess up the numbering system. How should this best be cited?Vcelloho 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• This problem can be alleviated by switching to the new references format. See WP:FN for details. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've converted the references to the new <ref> format. I made sure to name each of the references, which means you can access each of them multiple times without messing up the numbering system. Once you've grokked the instructions laid out in WP:FN, using them is easy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Could it also work to remove the numbers on the lower reference links and simply replace them with bullets and organize the sources alphabeticly? Then the numbers from the top would'nt matter.Vcelloho 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent article edits of dubious quality

There have been some edits to the article recently that I heavily disagree with. Since the recent changes that attempted to revert to previous edits were themselves reverted, and I do not wish to start an edit war, I'm taking it to the talk page.

• There is now only one paragraph in the header, with the second paragraph being moved into the "History" section. The paragraph contained overview-styled writing and things that don't even pertain to Megatokyo's history. One paragraph as the header for an article just doesn't work, and that paragraph was important in giving a good overview of the series.

• The "Chapters" subsection from the "Plot" section has been moved into the "Books" section, which has thus been renamed "Books and Online." I disagree with this for several reasons. For example, the "Books" section existed to cover Megatokyo's publishing in the first place, and the important details about its online status are covered in the header. Also, a bit of the "Chapters" subsection was inexplicably left behind in the "Plot" section: "The gaps in the strip number indicate omake manga or other nonplot related strips. Chapter 0 was not given a title in the web version but the book version retroactively gave it the above title." This is just messy editing, although putting this into the "Books and Online" section wouldn't look nice, either.

• The sentence recently added about the plot in the header is just dreadful: "Megatokyo centers around Piro a 20 something year old boy who is obsessed with manga and his friend Largo and their adventures in the city of Tokyo, Japan." This sentence has a lack of punctuation to the extent that it actually states that "Piro" is "obsessed with his friend Largo." However, when an IP tried to improve it their edit was reverted.

I propose reverting the first 2 changes back to the older versions, and heavily rewriting the final one. I hope we can come to an agreement. JimmyBlackwing 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits (to which you are referring were taken from suggestions on the current peer review to get this up to featured status. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that this article went up for peer review again. However, after reading the suggestions, I do not see any pertaining to the first 2 changes of yours listed here that I had a problem with. These edits, in my view, will actually decrease the chances of this article being featured. Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind them? JimmyBlackwing 03:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The one in the intro was trying to expand the information about the webcom in the intro pargraph since it doesn't say much about the comic itself. The other one was trying to compress the sections because there are too many useless sections currently in the article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest editing in some additional information on the comic to the header, while not removing the old stuff. A header needs to be concise, but not so much that it gives up important details, which those happened to be. While I agree that some of the stuff in that second paragraph would fit into the "History" section, the paragraph as a whole is completely out of place in there. If you really feel that it should be moved, then only a part of it should be merged into the "History" section, with additional information being written in for the new paragraphs formed by the split.

As for the "Chapters" subsection, your edit simply moved it from one section to another, while leaving parts of it behind. If you think it's useless, then you should either find another subsection to merge it into or delete it, and since it contains relevant information it's better to leave it in the article as is. I believe it should be moved back and the section renamed, as it had much more to do with the "Plot" section than the "Books" section, and "Books and Online" just doesn't look right. JimmyBlackwing 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the way I'm doing things then {{sofixit}} but since all your contributions have been to reverse and criticize the way I'm doing things I am skeptical of your goals and assuming good faith only goes so far. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was simply trying to avoid an edit war, which I thought may have happened because of your reaction to the IPs' edits, but if that's the way you feel so be it. Editing this article is nothing new to me.JimmyBlackwing 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Modification

• I understand why the characters subsection was removed however I tend to disagree with simply merging the characters into the plot section. I would opt for a character set up as seen with Calvin and Hobbes or The Adventures of Tintin both of which I wish to point out are former featured articles.Vcelloho. Also with the new set up the Character navigation bar becomes very unhelpful. 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• As an option I would suggest removing Piro, Largo, Kimiko and Erika from the Main Characters section and placing them in a character section on the megatokyo page. The the former Main Charcters page could be redubed Secondary Characters. All links refering to characters would have to be fixed but this is a viable option if anyone has a better Idea or wishes to convince me other wise please do so. Vcelloho 01:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the article reads just fine as it is, with the small exception of the template. The character sections from the major characters article are both too long and too redundant (with the rest of the article being the way it is) to simple copy and paste. To put them in this article would mean large amounts of editing and size reduction, and since they give you a fine amount of information as it is it would be a shame to simply shave it away. The characters all have basic outlines in the Plot section as it is, and that, to me, is enough. Although, I do think that a more streamlined way of reaching the character articles could and should be found. JimmyBlackwing 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind my previous response. As it was suggesting in peer review that the section be created again, I think your idea would work out the best. I think we should include more characters than just Piro, Largo, Kimiko and Erika, though - maybe branching out into Miho, Ping and Yuki, although not necessarily. Trimming down the information to deal with its redundancy with the rest of the article will, in turn, shorten them into reasonable sizes so that they don't overwhelm everything else. The current pictures used for them will need a bit of fair use description, as well. If no one else disagrees with this then I'll just go ahead and start working on it. JimmyBlackwing 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for it Vcelloho 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Where should character links go to? Should they go to their internal listings on the Megatokyo page or should they go to the articles outside of the primary page? Vcelloho 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

The 4chan imageboard has recently been having a lot of problems with fred and MT in general. In fact, the recent vandalism to this article is entirely the fault of 4chan regulars. You can verify this by viewing 4chan's /b/ (random) board. 69.145.36.133 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As a 4chan goer, I must elaborate. The vandalism happened because he vehemently denies drawing images dubbed as "loli" by 4chan. Also because he's trying to pass off the harassment as something that is happening for no reason whatsoever, just "a bounch of people with time to kill." There are a number of other things, but those are the main ones at hand currently. Luca Shoal 7:12 PM, June 8 2006 (EST).

to elaborate on my claim, I present his side of the story http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=866 4chan isn't as reliable, but look around for about 10 minutes for any threads mentioning "fred-chan" and "weeaboo."

[edit] Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo needs work

In order to get Megatokyo to FA status Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo this page definantly needs some work. users may want to look over the character pages to improve them so that the support articles surrounding Megatokyo are sound. Vcelloho 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did alot on Piro's characters. -- Psi edit 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone Suggested a Merge

Someone sugessted a merge in the characters section which I am personally against. I left a note here to let users know as the character talk pages are used fairly infrequently. Vcelloho 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tagging

I hope someone doesn't see my fact tagging as excessive in Piro - I'm just giving an example of what I think needs referenced. Let me know what you think... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with your tagging, but I disagree. Although Megatokyo is a webcomic, and therefore many more statements are citable than with, say, an article on a book, it is still a "comic." As a comic, shouldn't it follow the standards set forth by other comic-related articles that have been featured (for example, Krazy Kat, The Adventures of TinTin and Calvin and Hobbes)? All three of these contain characters sections which detail the characters' traits and personalities, but they have very little to no citation about those subjects. And for what it's worth, featured articles on books do not cite every little source of information about the plot, nor characters. An example of a featured article on a book, containing a characters section with no citation of its statements, would be Starship Troopers.

As I said, though - I understand where you're coming from in that it is possible to cite more statements, due to Megatokyo's webcomic nature. I do not agree with it on the grounds that it is absolutely not standard procedure in featured articles (and articles in general, for that matter), and that it is an impractical choice that could quite probably lead to an article like this one, where there are arguably more citations than actual content. JimmyBlackwing 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I essentially agree, and will take the tags off if there are no objections...? Nifboy 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Jimmy- if only every article could be so thoroughly sourced and verified! --maru (talk) contribs 00:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The use of sic

The need to transcript excerpts literally is excusable when we are dealing with sentences that may sound odd but are indeed intended to be that way, like when one says something that contradicts another thing said earlier for example.

To take a certain passage and not correct the eventual misspellings or grammatical errors, placing sic instead, is considered rude in jornalistic practice. It is something only used when there's a clear intention to attack and embarrass the original messenger. I don't believe that is the case here, so I am editing the part where Rodney said "than" instead of "then".RPin 22:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to change the words to their actual meaning then you have you put brackets around the change. Ex: "Easier said then done." → "Easier said [than] done." --SeizureDog 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo vs. megatokyo vs. MegaTokyo

I'm confused, the cover obviously shows it being all lower-case, but the capitalized version is obviously how people tend to refer to it. But then again, the double cap is used in the websites namespace. Exactly what is the "official" version? --SeizureDog 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that it seems to be refered to uncapped in the news postings. --SeizureDog 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Book 3 consistently capitalizes it "Megatokyo" in the dedication and Piro's rants. Nifboy 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

officially, the trademark on megatokyo does not specify case. megatokyo (all lower case) and Megatokyo (capitalized only once) are the ones most often used 'officially'. Personally, Megatokyo would be the correct proper noun usage, if you ask me. the all lower case version tends to be the author's use of lowercase as an affectation of humility. Cortana 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

after a discussion with the author today, Megatokyo is the preferred usage in most cases. Please use this form.Cortana 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Just wanted to clear that up since the usage is pretty inconsistent. --SeizureDog 10:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dom and Ed appear to be missing

Is it just me, or are the character entries for Dom and Ed completely missing? They don't seem to be on either this page or the minor characters page. I'm pretty sure they used to exist (there's mention of them being moved here from the minor characters page in April), and no-one seems to have discussed moving or deleting them.

The entries are here (Major Characters). But why do we have the major characters listed here when they have a page of their own. -- Psi edit 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination?

It appears to me that the complaints made in the most recent peer review have been addressed. The article itself looks to be in good enough shape to make it to FA status. If others believe as I do, then the article should attempt another FA nomination. JimmyBlackwing 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Warnings Attached to the Fred Gallagher Article and the Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo Article need to be fixed first to improve the support strucutre of this article. The Megatokyo Article itself is great I've had difficulty finding changes to make. Vcelloho 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fred Gallagher and Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo articles have been cleaned up substantially, and the templates, rendered unnecessary, have been removed. JimmyBlackwing 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing left is one citation on the Fred Gallagher page. I'm looking for it but it is more difficult to find then I thought it would be. I'll fix it as soon as I find it --Vcelloho 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I cited a few sources in Fred Gallagher, so that's taken care of.Hargle 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Some thoughts before a FAC:
  • The origins of the names "Piro" and "Largo" need to be cited;
  • Som:e of the paragraphs in the Character section are shortish and could perhaps be combined;
  • The numerous scare quotes in "Plot" are grating;
  • "Chapters" does not really belong with "Plot and recurring themes," so it could either be worked into "Books" or probably cut at no real loss to the article;
  • The very name "Plot and recurrent themes" seems a little verbose and slightly wrong: perhaps "Plot and themes?" "Synopsis" might be better still;
  • Citations for paragraphs three and four of "Plot" would be nice, and would insulate that section from citation concerns (check out Excel Saga's FAC).
  • A little too much attention seems to be given to Miho relative to Piro and Largo;
  • You should probably cite or cut fan-speculation about Miho (and in general);
  • The minor characters are an integral part of Megatokyo: Dom, Seraphim, Boo, Ping all warrant some mention;
  • It might be easier to rename "Main characters" "Characters," remove the headings from the main characters, and add a bulletted list of minor characters, or some such.

Good luck!--Monocrat 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The first, second, third, seventh and eighth issues have been taken care of. However, I am slightly skeptical of the others. Particularly the suggestion regarding the use of citations in the third and fourth paragraphs of Plot and recurrent themes. The problem is that many, if not all, of the statements made are not citable by their very nature.

For example, the fourth paragraph states the following:

The comic features aspects from a number of different anime and manga archetypes, usually making light of the genres' various clichés: Junpei, a ninja who takes on Largo as his "l33t master;" giant saurians (such as "Rent-A-Zilla") roaming the streets; the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division," which fights the monsters with giant robots and oversees the orderly and periodic destruction and reconstruction of predesignated areas of the city; Ping, a cute robot girl who becomes friends with Piro; and a school girl, Sonoda Yuki, who possibly is in love with Piro and has started taking art lessons from him. Dom and Ed (based on Dominic Nguyen and Edmund Balan, real-life friends of Gallagher and Caston), hitman-like employees of Sega and Sony, respectively, play characters associated with the Japanese stereotype that all Americans are armed to the teeth. Hayasaka Erika is a former idol, singer and voice actress (currently employed alongside Piro at Megagamers), while her shy, soft-spoken roommate, Nanasawa Kimiko, is aspiring to the same career (although she is currently employed at an Anna Miller's restaurant). Seraphim and Boo, Piro's and Largo's "conscience enforcement agents," respectively, try to help their clients make the morally correct decisions, while Asmodeus, Piro's "anti-conscience," attempts to undo their help. One of the more mysterious characters is Tohya Miho; she befriends Ping and seems to enjoy psychologically toying with others.

These are elements of the plot - not citable happenings. The only way they could possibly be cited is by multiple, perhaps even up to 5, citations on each statement to portray the fact that the elements are in constant use. The most logical citation would be "read the work itself," which isn't much of a citation at all. I can understand the possible citation of the friendship between Dominic Nquyen, Edmund Balan, Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, however, and will attempt to cite that quickly.

I would understand if this was commonly practiced, or even normally seen in featured articles. However, with such featured articles as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which contains not even a single citation of its long plot description) and The Giver (in a state similar to that of Hitchhiker's Guide), I cannot see the reasoning as to why Megatokyo requires citations of its plot. Further, I must also question the citation of paragraph three, under largely the same reasoning:

Megatokyo's pace and style indirectly correspond to the history of the comic itself. Much of the early humor consists of video game culture jokes, as well as culture-clash issues. During this early phase, the story moved along at a haphazard pace and was often interrupted by pure gag episodes and "dead piro" filler-art days. This has changed somewhat, however, with the greatest changes occurring after Gallagher completely took over Megatokyo - most prominently: slower pacing, increased detail of character personalities and a larger focus on romances between characters. "Dead piro" days still occasionally appear as omake when Gallagher is unable to produce a strip, as do "Shirt Guy Dom" gag strips, in fewer cases.

Most, if not all, of this deals with elements of the plot which are not citable. If it were, for example, to mention the occurrence of a singular event, it would be possible to cite it without the use of 3 or more citations (although it is still not commonly practiced). Unfortunately, it does not. The only element I can see the possibility of citing is the continued existence of the "dead piro" and "Shirt Guy Dom" strips, which will again require numerous citations - in addition to the need for said citations to be updated frequently, to keep in sync with their presence in the latest happens of Megatokyo. I would opt for a total removal of the aforementioned sentence over its citation, due to the needless complexities it would cause.

If any sort of citation is to be made, I would lean towards the renaming of the "References" section to "Notes" and including a new section titled "References" which lists the Megatokyo series - a practice seen in current featured articles on literature.

I might also add, in reference to your other suggestions, that the minor characters of Megatokyo are noted in the Plot and recurrent themes section, with detailed summaries available in the articles linked by template:megatokyo, which is located directly below the Main characters section. As for the Chapters section, I disagree with both moving it to Books or removing it entirely. It details that each chapter following the first one takes place in a single day, the time chapter 0 covers, the beginning and endings of chapters (information not easily found elsewhere) and the fact that chapter 0 was not named until the print version of Megatokyo was released. My reasoning for disagreeing with its movement to books is simpler: the books released only cover up to the end of chapter 6, making it factually inaccurate to list chapters 7 and 8 in the section.

Still, thank you for the suggestions and I will finish the changes besides those I disagree with (unless there is some element unknown to me which makes my entire argument invalid, in which case I will make all of your suggested changes). JimmyBlackwing 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the minor characters in "Plot..." Beyond that, I truly sympathize with your stance on citing plot elements, and I have argued the point about recent FAs not having them (see that link I gave you). Just be aware that I got an "oppose" from one editor (and one seemingly concurrent comment) for not having those citations. The "SGD" and "DPD" are important aspects of the franchise, methinks, so you can probably skirt citation. However, comments about the "haphazard" pacing of the story, "pure gag episodes," and Gallagher's changes are not plot elements per se but analysis of the plot, however light. Other FAs have gotten away with that, and it might not warrant an opposition now, but standards change. Since you now have those character articles, following summary style it might make sense (and this is a radical step) to combine "Plot" and "Main characters." (I was against this this when an editor made first proposed it to me for a different article, but I experimented in Wordpad and liked what I had.) Regarding the chapters: People at FAC seem to dislike needless lists, and at this moment the chapter list adds nothing expect the issue numbers; all of the relevant information it conveys is in the prose at the beginning of that subsection. As it stands, that prose could go in the lead, with the list cut without loss. Now, if you were to have chapter summaries, even of just a few lines, that would be different. But even then, you could probably work all of that into a unified Plot summary and still get rid of the list. Put another way, I've never seen a FA with a list of chapters. These are all just friendly advice: I'd like to see this get FA, but as it stands, I think it's got a ways to go.--Monocrat 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier modifications to the character section were recomended I disagree with these changes since The characters section is in very good condition also it was decided not to use a bulleted list of characters in this article.--Vcelloho 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Monocrat, I see where you're coming from. While I also disagree with the merging of Main characters into plot (as it was suggested in peer review that a characters section be made), I will work to cite the things you mentioned, and edit the Chapters section into something more serviceable. Thank you for the suggestions. JimmyBlackwing 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prose

There's a bit in the 'Reception' section where each paragraph begins with a single word followed by a comma--"professionally," "artistically," "originally," "arguably." Just a tiny nitpick; it's a little jarring if you're only skimming. --Masamage 01:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it ready?

The rate of contributions have slowed down and I can't find anything to change are we ready for FA submision. Vcelloho 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The last couple of things that bothered me were recently taken care of, I think it's ready. Hargle 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As even Excel Saga made it to featured status without citing any real source for its plot, I fail to see how Megatokyo should be any different. With that said, I have recently taken care of the last few things that I found even slight fault with. I would have to say that the article is ready to be nominated. JimmyBlackwing 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excel Saga couldn't external-link to each plot point either. --maru (talk) contribs 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excel does cite an episode guide published by Newtype USA (see footnote 12). Seems real enough to me. ;) Discussion over at the FAC talk page seems ambiguous on the necessity of plot citations, but I read it to say that they're not really needed. Anyway, I don't think this article is ready yet. I think the article has improved greatly over the past weeks, but I think it has issues with the prose (e.g., the sentence about Dom and Ed in "Plot" is a real pain, and the copy generally could use some sprucing up). Moreover, I'm still unsure about the wisdom of separating plot and character discussions in a character-driven story (especially as so little has really happened in MT that can be described as plot per se as opposed to character development). As it stands now, the distinction is poorly made: there are plot-ish elements in "Characters" and character descriptions in "Plot." As far as "Reception," it seems a little thin, but that could just be me. You've got a NYT article with untapped flattering material: Fred's explanation of obscure things like cosplay and LEET, and how he "offers a unique kind of intimacy with the work, a sense of being part of its creation in some way." I know Fred posts links to reviews and news about MT on the "rant" section, so perhaps you could trawl those for more references. On the subject of the "rants," Fred gives them titles, so I would personally use his titles for them in the citations, giving some explanatory material at the end of the note.--Monocrat 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies - I missed your citation, there. In any case, Megatokyo has no notable "plot guide," so it's a good thing it is not needed. I'll get to work on the other things you mentioned. Thanks for the suggestions. JimmyBlackwing 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe your complaints have been taken care of, Monocrat. JimmyBlackwing 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no more objections, and I cannot find any flaws large enough to prevent the article from passing FAC, perhaps it is finally time to nominate it...? JimmyBlackwing 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do, do it during a week where you have enough free time to fix the article in response to objections; FAC is by far the best place to get feedback for "almost there" articles, and fixing problems during the FAC is the best way to get featured. Nifboy 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Nifboy: you'll want free time. :) Good luck! (Sorry for the delay: I've been on wikibreak for a while.)--Monocrat 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. --L33tminion (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miho as Perkigoth

I know Fred has said this, but it's currently got a citation-needed sticker on it and I'm having a hard time locating it. The best I can find is the thread where he talks about the girl who inspired Miho's look[6]--can anyone help? --Masamage 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I googled both Fredart and Megatokyo for "perky," "perki," "perky goth," "perki goth," "perkygoth," perkigoth" and just "goth," (ignoring results from the forums) and came up with nothing relevant. Hargle 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did exactly the same thing. Problem is I've been an MT fan for some five years, so it's pretty much impossible to remember where I read that. An interview, maybe? Anyway, I'll change the phrasing to make it match that link and put the reference in. --Masamage 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I remember in Megatokyo Vol. 1 (the first Darkhorse volume), there are several references to the character-who-would-be-named-Miho as "Perkigoth" (or "Perkygoth"; it's sometimes hard to make out the exact lettering in the sketches) ex. the sketch on pg 154, or the comments on pg 90 ("Perkigoth? Queen of the undead? Or just a girl who likes to mess with Largo's hair?"), FWIW. --maru (talk) contribs 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good job! There it is! :D I'll use the sketch as a reference. Way to go. --Masamage 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:) Aww, stop it, you'll make me blush. It's simply lucky that I borrowed it from the library and had happened to see this section before I read it, is all. --maru (talk) contribs 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Item on To Do List

From the to do list:

• Add more info about changes since Rodney Caston left to history section

What were those changes? The comic continued to move away from an episodic "gag-a-day" style towards a more complex story, but that process was already underway when the split happened (indeed, that was the main cause of the split). --L33tminion | (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was my comment in peer review, so I may as well address it: At the time I made that comment, I didn't really think of the books/merch as "history", and found it rather odd that the only post-Caston event in that section was of Fred losing his job. It doesn't seem to apply anymore (particularly with the "funding" section), so I'm striking it out. Nifboy 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to submit this to FAC again. It looks ready. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuki?

I just realized that the character Yuki is nowhere to be found! Not on the main article, and not in the minor characters list! O_o

She's probably a main character... So edit carefully, bad writing could lose us the nomination! --Masamage 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack. Nevermind, I just discovered that Main Characters article. >__>; --Masamage 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

To alleviate pressure on the FAC:

1. By "reformulating the discussion on L33t..." I meant that it would be nice to have a broader idea in the lead of what cultural phenomena MT references. He mentions from time to time (perhaps in notes in the published volumes) that he draws from this or that manga or anime or what-have-you, so there's some material to work with. Perhaps I just haven't read it carefully enough. I noticed that the lead has changed quite a bit.
2. I'm uneasy about discussing how the art has changed, unless you can get citations for it. Gallagher talks about his growth as an artist occasionally in his rants, so that's perhaps a better place to start than using the covers. The problem with using the book covers to establish changes in the art style is that it verges on OR. Citations are much better. (On a side note, and as a neutral comment, I would prefer the first edition cover in the infobox. It's a brighter, more engaging image. But that's me.)
3. As for my other points: I belive most of the initial ones have been addressed. It is my strong hope that you will reconsider having separate plot and character sections, but the call is yours. However, the article still fails criterion 2a, just in terms of the stylistic quality of the writing. Even if you reject the idea of a consolidated Synopsis, you need to somehow address reptitive details, wordiness, long and awkward sentences. (For instance, see the sentence about Kimiko's rise to idol status, and the bit about the Tokyo Police Cataclysim Division. They grate on me.) I would offer to help with a copy-edit, but 1) I don't have the time now, 2) the temptation to merge would be too great *wink*, and 3) I suspect I've worn my welcome here thin.--Monocrat 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Kimiko and TPCD sentences: is that better? Also, got any more? ^^ --Masamage 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Issue #2 has been addressed, I believe. I also took a shot at issue #1 - is that something along the lines of what you were looking for? #3 will be resolved soon, I hope, though I will continue in my attempts to remove crufty detail in the Main characters section. JimmyBlackwing 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a side-by-side comparison of an older Kimiko drawing and a redone version in, I think, book 1. That would be a fab scan. Nifboy 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right! There are three drawings, in fact. My only misgiving about that idea is that the special material for the books is the only stuff that isn't available online, which makes it seem to break the "no free alternative" rule a lot more than most things do. --Masamage 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're that concerned about it, we can pull just the "early" image from "strip" 118 and pull the commentary from the book. I do still think adding the redone version would be ideal. Nifboy 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Masamage: the Kimiko sentence is better. I'm not sure what changed in the TPCD bit, but it still doesn't seem quite right. That whole paragraph strikes me as being a little awkward. Perhaps you could lift text from my proposed Synopsis, or at least use it to see what I did different? For the reasons above, I can't spare time for a thorough copy edit. Know any Wikipedians with l33t editing skillz?--Monocrat 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it used to be all one sentence: "Largo's work includes service with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he teaches his students about L33t, games, and hacking."

I changed it to become: "Largo's work includes teaching English at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he instructs his students in L33t, video games, and hacking. He also enjoys a brief stint as a member of the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division." Is it the GTO explanation? 'Cause that does feel a bit awkward. I guess I can try again in a little while; I'll make a note here when I do. --Masamage 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I made an attempt to tighten up the prose in question a little. Is that better? Note: with only one day left on the nomination (I believe), it would be great to know exactly what problems remain that keep you from supporting the article, Monocrat, so they may be fixed before it is too late. JimmyBlackwing 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, a brief glance suggests the prose still has issues, although it's better. The FAC will likely attract Tony1's attention, and I suspect you'll get a bit of input from him. I can't go through the whole thing due to work. If the prose improves enough, I'll probably strike my objection, but I don't think I'll be able to support it. I'm troubled too much by 1) the use of 100% of an independently copyrighted work (i.e., the strip: although this one works better than the previous one, commentary is still thin at best); and 2) as always, the separate plot and character sections. --Monocrat 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well. However, this game of "is it better now?" is beginning to wear on me. A better method would be, when you deem the quality of the prose appropriate, to simply strike out your objection on the Megatokyo FAC page. Until then, we will continue work on the prose, and hopefully bring it up to your standards. JimmyBlackwing 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, I assure you it's wearing on me, as well. I'm only doing two things here: 1) responding to questions by you, Masamage, and L33tminion, and 2) trying to see the article improved. I'm sorry if I've been too harsh on you. You have all done a very good job with the article, and my own issues with it notwithstanding, I hope it gets promoted.--Monocrat 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming order

Guys, don't mess with the naming order here - MOS:JA doesn't apply, because:

• Megatokyo is an American-made work of fiction
• All versions of the actual Megatokyo comic use Japanese order (there is a beginning extra, a "Dead Piro Day" picture, that uses Western order - but the actual comic uses Japanese order)
• MOS-JA does not govern fictional character naming order - only naming orders of people

WhisperToMe 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious! A great many other articles use Western order--I looked up every anime I've seen and they were all written this way. The fact that it was made in America would seem to make it more likely that we should use Western order. The Japan-guidelines don't actually say anything about how to list fictional characters' names, so I think it's inappropriate to use that as evidence in either direction. --Masamage 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But this is Megatokyo. "The Japan-guidelines don't actually say anything about how to list fictional characters' names, so I think it's inappropriate to use that as evidence in either direction." - That was precisely why the name order was switched around in the first place - I say that is why the order should not be switched around. Anyway, the reason why many Japanese anime and manga series have name switcheroos is because the English-language publishers switch the names around. Megatokyo is a different animal. WhisperToMe 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pro-writing-to-a-general-audience here; names should be in Western order, almost regardless of any other consideration, because that is the order with which English readers are most familiar. Also, it's what WP:ANIME suggests ("Characters' names should be given in western order."), even if it's technically not in its scope. Nifboy 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...both views makes sense. But this is definately more like anime/manga than it is like an American comic book. I didn't even know about that WP group, but since it exists, I have to say I think we should go with it. --Masamage 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"I am pro-writing-to-a-general-audience here" - It's not that difficult to explain the naming order. Switching the naming order, in a Megatokyo context, is getting it all wrong. It's very easy to say "In Megatokyo, Japanese names are written in this order" - I do not like the said order. But I know that if I switch the order, I am outright lying to people. " Also, it's what WP:ANIME suggests ("Characters' names should be given in western order.")" - WP:Anime is not policy. And it doesn't apply to Megatokyo; this is an American work. Also, to Masamage - "But this is definately more like anime/manga than it is like an American comic book." - But this isn't written by a Japanese author. The style doesn't matter - in fact, the statement isn't necessairly true because the comic originated in a more American format (four panel comic) and later switched to a more Japanese format. WhisperToMe 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, we understand that's your opinion. But since the rest of us have opinions too, this needs to be a much more two-way conversation. Which it doesn't feel like, to me. If I give in to you, it'll be because I'm tired of getting preached to, not because I agree. Which is pretty lame. --Masamage 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not like that "that's your opinion" phrase - Obviously it's my opinion. Maddox ranted about the phrase in his website: see http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood - Yes, it's Maddox's post, but I agree with him. Besides, on Wikipedia, this is a matter of right and wrong. It is wrong, in a Megatokyo context, to westernize the names. Also, part of that post was intended for another user. The part addressed to you started with your name. WhisperToMe 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I pressed one of your buttons; I didn't know it was there, and certainly wouldn't have made your blood boil on purpose. My statement was not meant to belittle your point, and I'm sorry that it seemed to. I only meant to show the perspective I was coming from. I respond to official guidelines immediately and as closely as I can; I respond to opinions by listening, and then expressing my own, and trying to have a conversation. But since you continue to insist that you are right and we are wrong, it's not a dicussion of opinion, and I'm consistantly on the defensive. It's frustrating, and it's a ridiculous way to approach the concept of consensus. We'll never succeed. --Masamage 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Be civil, please. Masamage was asking for additional input to help form a concensus. Wikipedia is also certainly not about "right and wrong". --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• As much as I disagree with the idea of Americanizing Japanese names, I think they should use Western order just because it's easier on the reader. It's a waste of their time to link them away to some article explaining the difference in naming orders, or even inserting some sort of description, which, as demonstrated by the last time, kills the flow of the article. There is no reason to start an edit war on this, particularly during FAC. JimmyBlackwing 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What about Chinese names? Korean names? Are we going to start Westernizing them just because? Don't get me wrong. I do support Westernizing Japanese names for the most part because other people do that too (in most Japanese fictional series, in news sources, etc) - But this article is an exception. "kills the flow of the article" isn't sufficient. We have footnotes. Those don't kill the flow of the article. WhisperToMe 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Japanese names aren't put in western order "just because" -- they're put in wester order because that's the way the Monbusho decided that Japanese people should format names back in the Meiji era. People in Japan with nationalist tendencies, don't like that formatting, but it's the one primarily used in scholarly works that mention Japanese subjects. (That's why we have the Meiji-era demarkation for naming Japanese people in the wikipedia.) We don't use those for Chinese and Koraen names on the wikipedia don't use those formattings because it wasn't the naming standard of the government that set language usage for ~150 years. --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • By the way, here is a forum thread about the name order right here: http://forums.megatokyo.com/index.php?showtopic=1695881&hl= - As one forum user puts it:

"MT is not a Japanese work; it is proudly an American fan work, and (I suspect) embraces Japanese conventions out of appreciation for the culture. In a small way, it contributes to us experiencing the foreign immersion that Piro and Largo are currently experiencing. " WhisperToMe 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • That has no bearing on Wikipedia, and neither does the Maddox rant you linked to. The most important thing here is to make it easily approachable by someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. If you can find a way to make it easy for the readers (the use of an inline citation above the characters section is confusing and unsightly, and the text it links to does a poor job of explaining this), then by all means do so. Thus far, none of the solutions you have provided for this have managed that. You may be in the right here, but being right does not mean you have the right to disrupt the readers' experience. JimmyBlackwing 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • "but being right does not mean you have the right to disrupt the readers' experience." Answer this question: What about Chinese names? Korean names? Are we going to start Westernizing them just because? - And, yes, all of this is relevant; Are we going to say "Zedong Mao" just to not "disrupt the readers' experience?" - I am well aware what the audience is - This is a specific work of fiction under a specific set of circumstances. Again, I want Megatokyo to use Western order, but, at the same time, the Japanese naming order is used in the comic and it will stay that way. WhisperToMe 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I agree that the names should remain in Japanese order. However, to simplify what I said before:

The explanation you put in the article of exactly why the characters' names are in Japanese order is confusing at best, in both prose and presentation. If putting the names in Japanese order is correct, great, but let the readers know in a way that does not make them say, "Huh?".

• • • • • • Bottom line: find a way to do it that is as seamless as simply putting them in Western order, instead of just letting any reader who comes into the article be confused while you argue your point on the talk page. JimmyBlackwing 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"The explanation you put in the article of exactly why the characters' names are in Japanese order is confusing at best, in both prose and presentation. If putting the names in Japanese order is correct, great, but let the readers know in a way that does not make them say, "Huh?"."

How I am doing it right now is having a footnote from the top of the "characters section" - As well as have a note about it in the Main characters and minor characters articles at the top of the said pages. Also, I am using the words "family name" and "given name" to reduce confusion. WhisperToMe 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's still unnecessarily confusing. Why does a reader need to be confused just because there's a small debate over which one is correct? The current version of your changes are neither substantial nor cohesive enough to adequately replace simply Westernizing the characters' names - regardless of whether it's correct or not, it isn't worth the price of confusing the readers.

• I must make mention of the fact that that you are using your own, personal Wikiphilosophy as an arguing tool. Sure, the guidelines in question don't make any specific mention of this situation, but that doesn't make your view of what course of action to take here any more correct. In fact, you are possibly the one more in the wrong here, as you have jeopardized the stability of the article by pushing your own Wikiphilosophy through minor edit warring. I am assuming good faith, here, make no question of that, but your course of action has been disruptive to say the least, regardless of the motivation behind it.

• There is currently a comment on the article's FAC page about this debate, and I fear it getting out of hand could be the final nail in the coffin of this article's FAC discussion, per criterion 2e of the featured article criteria. That said, I'm going to make you an offer in order to end this as soon as possible: if you can find a way to justify the possible confusion of the readers (through something more than your personal views on the subject), and improve your system enough that it will cause as little confusion as possible, then the names stay in Japanese order. If you can't manage that, then they're going back to Western order, and I do hope you won't turn this into a full-scale edit war because of it. JimmyBlackwing 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "That said, I'm going to make you an offer in order to end this as soon as possible: if you can find a way to justify the possible confusion of the readers (through something more than your personal views on the subject), and improve your system enough that it will cause as little confusion as possible" - Then you tell me what you think is better than my solution, because footnotes are already the acceptable way to do this (See Saddam Hussein) WhisperToMe 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are that concerned with it ruining the FAC, just let the issue go and let the Japanese naming order appear in the article. I will say this right now: I will not budge. Why should an article be FACed if it has a fatal factual inaccuracy? It has to reflect the Japanese order - Putting the character names in Western order and then making a footnote that states that the actual comic uses Japanese order is contradictory and self-defeating. WhisperToMe 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I made some edits, and I think the current version is clear, non-confusing, and not misleading. Note that the transliterations of the Japanese spellings of names are in Japanese order, while the other instances of those names are in standard English order. Also note the footnote after Erika's name. Finally, someone should add the Japanese spelling of Miho's name to the article (if it is known). --L33tminion (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Miho's name kanji/kana is totally unknown. It's been a point of speculation on the forums for years. ^_^ --Masamage 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "I made some edits, and I think the current version is clear, non-confusing, and not misleading. " - That is misleading, because the actual comic uses Japanese order! (I am repeating the same point over and over because I feel like it is not understood by some at the moment) - If the actual comic uses a naming order that potentially confuse readers, why can't this article? And this article has a footnote. This already fulfills JimmyBlackwing's request (we use footnotes in other articles - Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, etc) - WhisperToMe 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Everyone understands you perfectly. The sooner you get that, the better. Good grief. --Masamage 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • In that case, the only thing left to discuss is not what the naming order should be, but what is the best way to organize the information used to inform people about the naming convention. From what I can tell, Japanese naming order is going to stay, but I need to come up with a better way to footnote it. WhisperToMe 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • That's not true, because I understand and still disagree with you. I also feel extremely talked-down-to. I feel like you think we're the bad guy, and like we wanted to hurt our readers and you personally by evilly putting names in a certain order. What an insignificant detail to get so angry about. You've actually threatened to make the nomination fail if you don't get your way, which just blows my mind. I'm so appalled that I don't have any idea how to address your statements anymore. --Masamage 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • In the world of an encyclopedia, there is no such thing as an "insignificant detail" - If it was that insignificant, there wouldn't be a debate over it, would it? - If this is going to be an FA, it has to be darned close to perfect; that's why I am threatening the nomination - I understand it is hard to get a perfect article. I understand you worked hard on this article. The problem, is that the article *must* be perfect; deliberately using a different naming order makes the article worse - Why bother using a different naming order to clear up the confusion when the comic uses the Japanese naming order itself? Masamage, please don't take my attitude personally. I have the attitude because I take Wikipedia seriously. That means rejecting the "that's your opinion" idea. When you are in a hot debate, the "that's your opinion" is a sign of weakness. I do not wish to convey that. If this was a casual AIM chat about personal preferences, "that's your opinion," while it shouldn't be said, is the best way to think about it. But when this is a Wikipedia dispute, "that's your opinion" is fatal. WhisperToMe 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose solution

Jimmy Blackwing - Remember my last edit before L33t minion replaced the naming order? Why not have that, but, if needed, bold the note that Japanese names in Megatokyo are in the traditional order - We can also add a "See Japanese name" to show the controversy - People will see the footnotes, know something is up, and follow the rabbit holes :) WhisperToMe 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree, as the version you are proposing was actually the one causing confusion in the first place. This is getting way out of hand, particularly with your comment about objecting to the nomination purely due to your personal view of this issue. I have submitted it for discussion on the FAC discussion page. JimmyBlackwing 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I say there is no real confusion if the reader finds the footnote and reads it. "particularly with your comment about objecting to the nomination purely due to your personal view of this issue." - Don't call it a "personal point of view" - I say that, if it a featured article, it must be very darned close to perfect. Here's my statement: Why bother switching around the naming order to "prevent confusion" when the reader reads the darned comic, he or she will see the alternate naming order and ask "Well, why did Wikipedia do that?" WhisperToMe 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, my proposed solution was not causing any confusion - From what I can tell, JimmyBlackwing, you fear that it will cause confusion. Those are two different things. WhisperToMe 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, it is completely okay to "threaten" (In a sense of, vote against) the FAC because the issue is not properly addressed. I do NOT mean removing FAC links or stuff like that, just to be clear. WhisperToMe 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It is your personal interpretation of what should be done about the issue in order to bring the article "close to perfection." There are no policies relating to it, and this has dissolved into an argument of separate Wikiphilosophies. With that in mind, I do not agree that it is "completely okay" to object to a nomination simply because it goes against your personal opinion. Also, the majority of people who read this article will not ever read Megatokyo. If they did, then this would be an advertisement. As such, the naming order should make sense for readers of the article - not readers of Megatokyo. I find the current version to be the perfect example of the article making sense to readers, but yet being comprehensive by covering the fact that Megatokyo's names are in Japanese order. Regardless, we shall see what the result of the discussion on the FAC talk page is. JimmyBlackwing 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • "Also, the majority of people who read this article will not ever read Megatokyo. If they did, then this would be an advertisement" - Not necessairly - Keep in mind that many people who regularly read Megatokyo may edit the article. As per the forum post, many of the people who read Megatokyo already know about Japanese naming conventions, and would not be confused about the way names are ordered in Megatokyo itself. WhisperToMe 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • You are talking about a minority. A very, very small minority. Articles are written for non-specialists - in other words, the majority. The vast majority of the people who stumble across this article will never read Megatokyo - a simple glance at Wikipedia's traffic ranking at Alexa will tell you this. JimmyBlackwing 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I have moved the discussion which was originally located on the FAC talk page to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). JimmyBlackwing 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • But what are the ratings for the Megatokyo page on Wikipedia itself? Wikipedia covers a lot more than Megatokyo, so not all of the traffic will read the Megatokyo article. WhisperToMe 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of debate

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Naming order in relation to works of Western origin. The name order for Megatokyo characters of Japanese origin stays in the Surname—Given name order. Hereafter, their names should not be modified from this form. JimmyBlackwing 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link is wrong, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Naming order in relation to works of Western origin. You seem to imply that the discussion is over, please don't make such misleading comments. It is pretty clear that this is not the consensus. A lot of editors don't like being forced to change the naming order from how the original has it, and somehow some think this article is excused because it's not Japanese. How does that make any sense at all? If someone had a rule, such as "no wearing shoes on the clean floor" and posted it in Room A, Room A then follows that rule. Room B comes along and wears their shoes on the floor, because they said "well, they only put the note in on Room A, and we're Room B." That's just childish, man. -- Ned Scott 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When I linked to it, no debate had started, nor did I expect one to. JimmyBlackwing 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation formatting

This conversation is very hard to decipher. The formatting seem to be broken in several places. Can someone who knows who was talking to who, correct it? --Kunzite 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement of cover images

At 13:20, User:CyberSkull replaced the manga cover images that were removed per FAC consensus with an edit summary of merely "book covers;" I waited a reasonable amount of time for him to provide a reason for this change, but now an hour has passed with no word on either the talk page or the FAC page. As such, I have reverted the edit pending further explanation of why the images were replaced. Hargle 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate vs. Merged Plot and Character Sections

Monocrat suggests merging the "Plot" and "Character" sections into one synopsis section, and has drawn up a draft of such a merge here. I greatly appreciate Monocrat's work on this issue. However, I think that having separate character and plot sections makes the article less confusing and makes it easier for readers to find specific information. It also makes it easier for readers who are trying to avoid spoilers to do so. Thus, I'd like to find out what the rest of you think on the subject. Thus, I'm setting up a quick straw poll on the issue. Please share your opinions (and preferably the reasoning behind your opinions as well). --L33tminion (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge the Sections

• Monocrat 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Sigh. Here goes: As I've pointed out before, much of the current Main Characters section is fluff that repeats or only lightly expands on details provided in Plot. Furthermore, with as little as there really is to say about the characters (it's not like there's much in-depth analysis), the distinction between plot and characters in a character-driven story seems rather forced. It's not even maintained in the article, as all the minor characters are discussed (fairly well and succinctly) in the "Themes..." Why is what's good for minor characters not good for main characters? I don't follow arguments about convenience: do you mean to say that repetition and forced distinctions are convenient? If you know what you're looking for, perhaps. If you're new to the topic, I doubt it. (Why must a hypothetical new reader in three instances read that Piro and Largo are based on the creators? Once in Plot, and once each in Piro and Largo.) Proper headings and organization can solve that problem. Regarding spoilers, is it better to have one section under spoiler warning or two? Anyway... Eyesores are in the eyes of the beholder. ;) I personally find short sections visually offensive, and that paragraphs and sections of decent size allow for elegant and developed writing. Again, proper organization and headings can resolve most of that concern. And the character images **are** irrelevant: they will not appear in any mirror or derivative of Wikipedia, nor do I think they add much at all. Most images on WP I think are just eye candy. :) The only image in the article I think even close to necessary is the first volume's first cover (with sincerity: thank you thank you thank you!). It shows the protagonists, the style, and the branding. Anyway. So my proposed Synopsis didn't take. I didn't expect it to. Still, I ask that someone closer to the material and article try making a unified Synopsis--such closeness might lead to a satisfactory product, and this issue can be revisited. Really, it's almost there: enough single details can be lifted from Main Character into Plot, and we'd be done with this. Back to work for me.
  • Well, it's not like having good-looking articles is a bad thing. That's one of the major benefits to good illustration, it's more enjoyable than when the same information is conveyed with just text. That aside, I've begun serious work on improving the plot section. While I think a little redundancy is worth it for the organizational clarity that separate sections provide, it currently seems more redundant than necessary because the plot section could use more information. --L33tminion (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leave them Separate

• L33tminion (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (clearer (IMO), easier to avoid spoilers if desired, easier to find specific information)
• JimmyBlackwing 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (in this case, merging would almost definitely cause the loss of necessary and non-trivial detail. As commented on by L33tminion, separate plot and characters section are clearer (in most cases), and make it easier to find specific information. See Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy X-2 or Shadow of the Colossus for articles of featured quality which are only made better by their inclusion of some form of characters section)
• --Masamage 07:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC) - As I mentioned in the nomination page, very long paragraphs sort of make my eyes glaze over, and I tend to think I'm not alone. People who want to spend a long time on MT will go and read the comic; the rest are here out of curiousity, and they'll want something concise. Short paragraphs with identifying headers are much friendlier and more intuitive to that kind of visitor. --Masamage 07:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hargle 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I prefer it as it is currently, mixing them together results in a murky hodgepodge of information that is clumsy to navigate and makes it difficult to find specific info; and also makes the character images seem less relevant.

[edit] Plot Section

I'm working on the plot section now (slowly, as I'm having a really hard time with it (although that will be a little easier once I have some time to sit down with the books)). I don't think the plot summary is nearly complete enough. A few other comments:

• Largo is also briefly hired by the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division."
  • Why was he hired, and how did he lose that job? (As I recall, the TPCD is now sending ninjas after him...)

• As the series progresses, Piro and Largo begin shaky relationships with women they meet and grow as individuals, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they first represented.
  • This is way too hand-wavey, even for a summary.

• Another plot thread includes the character Kimiko Nanasawa's sudden rise to idol status, fueled by her outburst on a radio talk show...
  • This transition is awful. It needs to be more clear how this ties into the rest of the story. How do the protagonists meet Kimiko in the first place, etc.?

--L33tminion (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. I'll be able to help with this a little later. JimmyBlackwing 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done more work on this. But a few parts still need more detail, especially the following:

• Later in the series, it is revealed that Erika was herself an idol, but she disappeared from the public eye after an incident involving the death of a fan
• Miho also mentions that she was a fan of Erika's, or more precisely, a fan of her fans. (the exact quote would be good)

Those bits were written by me, but I'm having a hard time remembering precise plot points or finding the relevant comics. --L33tminion (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the section should have references that point to specific comics. --L33tminion (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree on that references bit. Plot citations are not a requirement, nor do they do anything besides clutter section. Also, the huge amount of redundancy in the plot and characters sections is grating. The problem is, if I cut the last bits out of the characters section, it's probably going to end up with me just merging a few of the character subsections into plot. JimmyBlackwing 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that plot citations aren't a requirement, but I still think they would be a plus. --L33tminion (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and format change

I find that, though L33tminion's recent revisions of the Plot section were, for the most part, of high quality, the extreme amount of added detail has compromised the necessity of the Main characters section. However, I still heavily disagree with Monocrat's proposed complete merge of the Main characters and Plot sections.

In light of this, I am proposing this change in layout and writing. I believe this is an adequate compromise between the two viewpoints, eliminating the redundancy of the previous system, while at the same time keeping the detailed analysis of the characters. The style of introducing characters and then discussing plot elements is seen in such featured articles as Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X and Chrono Trigger, so I do not believe it is a huge jump in logic to change the layout like this. Apologies to L33tminion, but the change proposes yet another heavy rewrite of the Plot section, largely due to my belief that the current version is far too detailed for a summary.

Thoughts on this? JimmyBlackwing 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Due to User:Tony1's recent objection to the nomination, wherein he listed "redundancies" as a reason for his opposition, I strongly advise the course of action suggested here. JimmyBlackwing 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm too dazed by everything to respond in general, but I have one comment: please don't mention "blurred". Talk about unnecessary details. Ugh. --Masamage 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, referring to "blurred" as "pornographic" is (at best) misleading. --L33tminion (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed the sentence. Aside from that, are there any objections to this change, before I stick it in the article? JimmyBlackwing 07:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can you try to implement this incrementally in the article instead of doing a cut and paste? (I've started on the process, and I don't want all my edits to be blown away.) --L33tminion (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you think of the current version of the Plot section? I think it's been greatly improved, and it would be hard to remove much more detail without leaving out significant plot points or disrupting the prose. --L33tminion (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just made a ton of edits. I merged in some stuff from your proposal, but I probably missed some improvements. --L33tminion (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Still some problems, but they're small and can be taken care of pretty quickly. The Plot section is good now, I think. To me, the biggest issue seems to be the fact that the "Themes[...]," "Plot" and "Main characters" sections are all separate sections, though it may only be me seeing this. JimmyBlackwing 10:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • While I think it makes more organizational sense to have them all be first-level sections, that's a minor point; feel free to include them in a "Synopsis" section if you think that makes more sense. --L33tminion (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge character pages?

Why do Main characters of Megatokyo and Minor characters of Megatokyo merit separate pages? Wouldn't it make sense to merge them to Characters of Megatokyo? Also, the useful changes to the "Main characters" section should be merged to the relevant sections in Main characters of Megatokyo. --L33tminion (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Did the second part, but I'm not going to merge the two pages without some support from other editors. --L33tminion (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "master page" system was used awhile back, but it proved to be counterintuitive, and was deleted. As such, I'd prefer that the articles stayed separate - they don't seem to be causing any harm as they are. JimmyBlackwing 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobari Saeko

I don't know a lot about Tobari Saeko [7] - All I know is that she is one of the characters that had kanji chosen for her... WhisperToMe 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shizuhara Eimi

And what about Shizuhara Eimi ( http://www.fredart.com/fredart/artpage.php3?src=&ft=co&fn=29 )? WhisperToMe 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your second link reveals all, Both Saeko and Eimi are characters from Warmth[8] a unreleased work by Gallagher. -- Psi edit 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The prose

Overall, it's a great article. I still think there are a few patchy spots in the prose, but we'll work them out. — Deckiller 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the article (Main characters would be too tempting, so I've passed that over). (Thanks to Deckiller for cleaning up after my sloppy self!) Here are some thoughts:

• Spoiler tags for Main Characters.
• "Consequently, characters who speak L33t are frequently unable to effectively converse with those who do not." I understand it, but this doesn't seem essential for the lead.
• Aren't Largo and Erika a little more than friends? I always thought there was romantic tension there. Not a critical point, but the bit in Plot seems understated.
• I'm not satisfied with Miho's paragraph in Plot. I won't make it a sticking point, but it needs work.
• However, most of paragraph 3 of Reception seems unnecessary. Delete it, moving its first sentence to paragraph four?
• At the risk of unravelling a delicate compromise, would it be possible to make the note about the ordering of the Japanese names a footnote in the three subsections it's relevant? It's rather hard on they eye where it is.

The prose has sufficiently improved, so I have struck my objection. I still think the article would benefit from a consolidated plot/character summary, but I think it's ready to be a FA. Good job!--Monocrat 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Largo and Erika a little more than friends? I always thought there was romantic tension there. Not a critical point, but the bit in Plot seems understated.

Piro and Kimiko have both admitted to liking eachother; neither Erika nor Largo ever has. Other characters within the story have stated that they look like they're dating, but it's often based on misunderstandings. And there is definately significant tension, but the article previously said they were in a "relationship," which is just not true. --Masamage 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of Reception is necessary - it details one of the big things that critics of Megatokyo bring up. And it is definitely something worth mentioning, since it's so out-of-the-ordinary. JimmyBlackwing 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that it's important to mention that the critics mention those aspects. Hence the first two sentences of the third paragraph are okay. But is it really necessary to point out the website's short comings and refer to a fan site? How's this:

With a large supporting cast and several ongoing subplots, some critics feel Megatokyo is accessible to only a select audience and unfriendly to new readers. Although Gallagher states early in Megatokyo Volume 2 that he and Caston "didn't want the humor ... to rely too heavily on what might be considered 'obscure knowledge'", an article in The New York Times insists that such scenarios were unavoidable. The article commented that the comic "sits at the intersection of several streams of obscure knowledge", including "gaming and hacking; manga ... the boom in Web comics over the past few years; and comics themselves". The article also held that "Gallagher doesn't mean to be exclusive ... he graciously offers translation of the strip's later occasional lapses into L33t ... [and] explains why the characters are occasionally dressed in knickers or as rabbits". The newspaper went on to argue that "The pleasure of a story like Megatokyo comes not in its novelistic coherence, but in its loose ranginess".

To the point and a thicket of citations (omitted). :)--Monocrat 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

After stewing over it for awhile, I'm still not sure I agree. The fact that Fred Gallagher has never had official plot or characters guides is, in my opinion, a point worth mentioning. And the fact that fans have created their own character guides in response to it is a part of the comic's reception. I understand your want to trim down possibly unnecessary information, but I think this should stay. JimmyBlackwing 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On another note, would you be opposed to putting the notice about the order of characters' names on the top of the article? It would be pretty difficult to make it a note, and have it make sense at the same time. JimmyBlackwing 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather the note about the names stay where it is than what you suggest. :) But would a sensible compromise on the other issue be to demote mention about the lack of official character/plot guides to footnote?--Monocrat 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that one of Websnark's biggest reasons to stop paying attention to MT was that he couldn't keep track of the characters (since a lot of them look alike), and it annoyed him that Fred's words on the character space are "when I feel like it." If someone that well known in comics-review had such a huge problem with it, it seems well worth mentioning. Maybe not the link to the specific fansite, though (Oh, and Jimmy, he did have character bios up at once point, many years ago when I first started reading.) --Masamage 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the text in question could be reworked to refer to explicitly to Websnark and other reviewers' concerns?--Monocrat 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point of prose, from plot:

• When she is rediscovered by her fans, she allows Largo to teach her to build a computer in order to speak up for herself.

That sentence doesn't sound right, and I'm not sure it's totally accurate. (I've done some other work in the prose in plot, too, but I'm not sure how to fix this sentence.) --L33tminion (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She does allow him to teach her how to assemble a computer, but claiming that her reason is "In order to speak up for herself" is speculation. Largo's idea for the computer seems to be that it will help alleviate her "vulnerabilities in the digital plane,"[9] but he hasn't clarified what he means by that. Hargle 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed?

Odd. The result of the debate seemed to me to be a consensus that it should be featured. If no one objects, I think we should renominate it - it was so close to making it in before that it should pass through with flying colors this time. JimmyBlackwing 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A featured article needs to be the best of the best, and have a strong support. There were so many fixes just during the FAC that it makes me wonder what all is really left to make this article shine. I think the editors here should keep working on it based on the previous suggestions, and look for similar issues that might not have been pointed out yet. It seemed to me that the longer the FAC went on the more things people found to fix. At least give it a week or two before renomination. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eight very quiet days later..... --Masamage 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Renominated. Guess this means I have to admit that my earlier confidence was wrong, but it's ready this time. For reals. I think. --L33tminion (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More prose

From plot:

This event causes Kimiko to develop an idealized vision of Piro, which is shattered during a later meeting.

That sentence doesn't seem to flow right ("version... is shattered" doesn't quite seem correct), but I'm not sure how to fix it. --L33tminion (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, but it already sounded okay to me, so this might not have helped: "This event causes Kimiko to develop an idealized vision of her rescuer, an image which is shattered the next time they meet." --Masamage 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's better. --L33tminion (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the story" paragraph

I took a shot at rewording this (ignore my edit summary - it is incorrect) to be more consistant with the rest of the article. Feel free to revert if no improvement. RN 22:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about Gallagher

User:Fieari (in the FAC discussion) suggests that this comment be readded to the Reception section of the article:

Arguably, buffering some complaints is the sense of humility Gallagher typically gives off. As Tycho of [[Penny Arcade (comic)|Penny Arcade]] notes, "We've gotten on famously ever since I figured out that he legitimately detests himself and is not hoisting some kind of ''glamour''."<ref name="pennyarcade">{{cite web|last= Holkins|first= Jerry|year= March 27, 2006|work=[[Penny Arcade (comic)|Penny Arcade]]| title= The Doujinshi Code|url= http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/03/27 | accessdate= april 11|accessyear = 2006}}</ref>

I'm placing that text here so that it's available to whoever is reworking that section. --L33tminion (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've experimented a bit in my sandbox, and though I personally find this version to be far inferior to the current one, I believe it takes care of both User:RN's and User:Fieari's issues. JimmyBlackwing 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I pasted that into the article. It may need some further edits, but I think it's best to add it now and then edit it in place. Good work. --L33tminion (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miho and Erika in Plot

My wording:

Miho is also involved in Erika's backstory. Her manipulation of Erika's fans after Erika's disappearance ended badly, with the TPCD cleaning up the aftermath and Miho hospitalized.

RN's rewording:

Miho is involved in Erika's backstory as well, manipulating Erika's fans after her disappearance; however, this ended up with Miho being hospitalized and the TPCD coming in to clean up the aftermath.

Masamage's rewording:

Miho is involved in Erika's backstory as well, having manipulated Erika's fans after her disappearance. The details of her actions are currently unknown, but they resulted in Miho being hospitalized and the TPCD coming in to clean up the aftermath.

Honestly, I still like my wording much better (I spent a lot of time working on that; while I think RN's criticism is still valid, I think the changed versions sound a lot more "awkward"). --L33tminion (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reverted back. I was trying to improve the flow a bit, but I don't think I succeeded there. Hmm, maybe something like

Miho also meddled in Erika's backstory, minipulating Erika's fans after her disappearance. While the details of Miho's actions are unknown, they resulted in the hospitalization of Miho and the TPCD cleaning up the aftermath.

(Not sure if my wording is correct as I'm unfamiliar with the comic although I use to have a roomate years ago who read the thing multiple times a day). RN 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Miho also plays a significant, but concealed role in Erika's life. Although she had attempted to withdraw from the life of a pop idol, Erika was unmasked by Miho, who leaked information to and manipulating the former's most devoted fans. Although her motives and exact methods remain unknown, the sudden appearance of crowds of Erika's fans required intervention by the TPCD and indirectly led to Miho's hospitalization." All three proposals (including the status quo) feel rushed. Even if my proposal is rejected, I think this part needs verbal expansion (there are enough thoughts running around as it is).--Monocrat 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not right either, it confuses two different events, and there is also some speculation in there:

• Miho was not hospitalized as a result of the "fanboy riot;" the event that caused her hospitalization happened well before the beginning of the comic, and has not been elaborated on as of yet.
• "Erika was unmasked by Miho" is speculation, there is a good deal of evidence (but not absolute proof) that Dom was the one who did it, and virtually none that it was Miho.
• "Miho also plays a significant, but concealed role in Erika's life." has some basis, but not enough to make it a verifiable fact. She was involved in her backstory, but whether Miho's actions had a significant effect on Erika's life is still unclear, so claiming it is a fact won't work. Hargle 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the material, so I was expanding what was here. The whole thing needs to be cut, or condensed simply to "Miho has also secretly manipulated Erika's life to an unknown extent." So there are two main options: expand the wording, or cut some thoughts. --Monocrat 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an important fact, so I'm heavily opposed to cutting it. I'd be fine with expanding it if that can be done cleanly, but I still don't see why expanding it is necessary. What facts need to be included that are not in the original version? Does it need to be clerer that this is a part of the story that the readers do not (yet) know much about? --L33tminion (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant facts are mostly in #799 and #800, for reference. In #805, Inspector Sodona refers to the incident with Miho as "the one time [he] almost lost Tokyo". --L33tminion (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erika's disappearance

From Masamage's edit summary:

Also, "death of a fan"??

It's alluded to in #582 and elsewhere that Erika might have killed one of her fans. --L33tminion (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oho! I forgot about that, thanks. On the other hand, "possible death of a fan" is all we can say for sure. --Masamage 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When did Caston Leave

From RN's FAC objection:

"now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used

He's right that "as of [date]" would be more accurate. When did Caston officially leave Megatokyo? --L33tminion (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. I've done a little searching, and according to Piro[10], the actual falling away was gradual. I guess the closest to official one can get would either be the date of that blog post (which is ridiculous, since it's from 2005), or the date they signed the financial agreement on how to split future monies... which I can't find the date of. Zut! --maru (talk) contribs 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just use the year. --Masamage 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend using the date in this one. It's the first time their split was announced. JimmyBlackwing 19:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured!

Eeee! High-fives and WikiLove for everyone!! :D --Masamage 03:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, people. Bask in the glory. Ryu Kaze 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, w00t! --L33tminion (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 has pledged a bounty of $50 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Megatokyo's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!

50 bucks for Wikimedia! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 was a sockpuppet, and his owner has left his main Wikipedia account. I doubt he'll show up to give the $50, unfortunately. JimmyBlackwing 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all that contributed. Though I myself haven't been able to do much but I have been watching the progress for +3 months and we have definately come a long way. "w00t" indeed ^_^ Ariolander 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

\/\/007 17 4^5 |=1|\|411y 833|\| @(431\/3|). Megatokyo is finally a featured article thanks to everyone. I wish that I could have done more for this but school and camp prevented me from doing so. -Vcelloho 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone! Despite my stubbornness, I'm glad to see hard this featured and all work well paid. :)--Monocrat 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, do we have a Main Page date lined up? Where do we get one? --Masamage 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Nifboy 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was preparing to post a request there--asking for October 18th, because it's fairly soon and was the date this strip appeared--but I hesitated because of our lead section. It's not very exciting; I don't think it would quite work on the main page. Any suggestions? --Masamage 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:TFA: "The Main Page includes a section where an adapted lead section from one of Wikipedia's featured articles is displayed." If you look at the lead for today's featured article (Simon Byrne, as I write this), and then look at the write-up on the main page, you'll see that they are actually very different; so I don't think that should be a big issue. Hargle 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. Anyone want to try their hand at a writeup for the lead? --Masamage 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a finished product, but here is my attempt. Any tweaks or suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm~. Not bad, but I'd recommend skipping right from "written and illustrated by Fred Gallagher" to "Ranking among the most popular." That's the stuff about what Megatokyo is. The stuff about Rodney is part of its history, which is better suited to the guts of the article itself, especially considering how confusing it tends to be. --Masamage 08:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed it around a little. I think the stuff about its availability and date of beginning should stay, using Watchmen's TFA as something of a template. I still get the feeling that it's missing something, though. JimmyBlackwing 08:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of megatokyo in relation to becoming Today's Featured Article. I was looking on the request list and I didn't see anything. Is it still being written or has it been accepted? Vcelloho 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a request was ever made. Nifboy 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...we all got distracted and never finalized a Main Page writeup. Probably we should get going on that again! --Masamage 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonada Yuki

Hello, Anonymous Bosch here. Sonada Yuki is rising in status from minor and major character here. I surf behind proxies for a number of reasons, and as such, cannot add to articles. Sonnada should be added to this article.--124.40.46.120 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel wordism?

I support changing

While critical reception to Megatokyo has been largely positive, with praise from sources like The New York Times,[7] it has received negative criticism from some sources as a result of Gallagher's changes.[8][9]

to

Critical reception to Megatokyo has been largely positive, with praise from sources like The New York Times[7]. It has received negative criticism from some sources as a result of Gallagher's changes.[8][9]

Why?

"Convoluted syntax. Weasel words require some convoluted syntax to get a point across. "A square has four sides" is a simple sentence; "Though not universally, squares are widely regarded as having an even number of sides that has been conjectured by experts in the field to be approximately four" wraps the key point in layers of syntactic obfuscation, leaving it to be harvested out of a strange little participial phrase by the reader." from Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words WhisperToMe 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, having read and grasped the concept of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words long ago (in response to User:WhisperToMe's message on my talk page). I do not see any point being put across with the current sentence structure. I believe that separating the one sentence into two destroys flow, making it read poorly. I do not think that any "convoluted syntax" is being used. Also, I must note that the proposed change removes only one word, which is a far cry from the example given. JimmyBlackwing 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Separating it into two sentences that are short and say the opposite thing from eachother, with nothing flowing between them, is clunky and harder to read. --Masamage 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Masamage, if you look carefully at the former, it insinuates that the "It has received criticism" is more valid than "It has received praise" - We do not need any sort of POV in Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you come up with a solution that reads nicely, I will not object. --Masamage 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I could come up with something that may "sound nicely" - Of course, that should be a secondary concern. NPOV, according to Jimbo Wales, is non-negotiable. Also, many transition words that sound great in essays completely ruin Wikipedia articles. WhisperToMe 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite structure is to start out by saying that a thing has received both positive and negative commentary, then state each in turn. It keeps things fluid without requiring any "on the other hands" in the middle. --Masamage 18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is acceptable to say "X asserts A and Y asserts B." One has to be careful with the wordiness, as that can give unneeded connotations. What I did with my attempt at reorganization is identify the people making the good and bad reviews. WhisperToMe 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the need to comment that the new version, which is currently viewable on the page, is the worst yet. While still lacking in proper flow, it turns the previously well-written sentence into a redundancy-filled mess. I stand firm that the original is superior in all ways. I might mention that ignoring one rule (featured articles must use brilliant prose) to fulfill another, particularly when the change is contested by two people, is not an advisable practice. Also, changing the part in question before the discussion has reach a consensus is generally frowned upon. I'm reverting it back to its original state until we're done here. JimmyBlackwing 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Anyway, I was told on #wikipedia that I am 100% justified in reverting since WP:NPOV is non-negotiable - Also, the article must name sources that "praise" and "criticize" Megatokyo. WhisperToMe 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - NPOV is a non-negotiable issue and must balance the article so it does not appear to be biased from either side. The sources who praised and criticised Megatokyo must be named and added to the article. The article in its present state is unbalanced and POV due to the current wording. Thor Malmjursson 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note: Even though the sources are mentioned later in the article, I believe the sources should be mentioned in that first sentence anyway. WhisperToMe 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the sources praising and criticizing the subject should be mentioned in the first sentence, as well as later on in the article, per reasons stated by Thor Malmjursson. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am not trying to negotiate NPOV; I am saying that there are no NPOV problems in the first place. I do not see how the current wording constitutes as POV-pushing for either angle. However, since there is a sudden consensus that the wording should be changed, I can't really do much about that. As for sources who praised and criticized Megatokyo, they are already mentioned in the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and adding a bunch of needless information would go against yet another Wikipedia guide. If the wording must be changed, so be it, but WP:LEAD dictates that it is not necessary—and is, in fact, detrimental to the article—to specifically name a bunch of sources. JimmyBlackwing 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it 'consensus' so much as 'everyone else getting tired of arguing'. --Masamage ♫ 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)