This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:04, July 13, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
The article dismisses the opinion of a leading authority in pre-war anime by citing an article who offered no proof that the scholar was wrong. The closest thing it offered for an explanation was a fantasy about Nicole Kidman, so my question is: does somebody else in the academic world dismisses Matsumoto's opinion or is the only voice of discord that link? Anyone? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.192.190.81 (
talk)
02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)reply
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Passing all! The early review questioned the Chinese lettering, asking how the scholars knew it was Japanese, if the writing was in Chinese, but I just read the intro to kanji. Since most readers won't over analyze the kanji writing, or they'll know what kanji is, it's not an issue. --
Zanimum (
talk)
15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking at the works cited, the first one (for example) says "Retrieved 2014-02-12". CT cites
MOS:DATEVAR, but directly below that is
MOS:BADDATE which lists that format as "Unacceptable" - "Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, as they are ambiguous for some dates". Hence why I made the change. So is that date 12th Feb 2014 or 2 Dec 2014, for example? Or why does one table on the same page seemingly contradict the other? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead13:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Exactly. 2014-02-12 is a YYYY-MM-DD format (not the forbidden YYYY-DD-MM format) in common usage. Check out the footnote to the sentence you are quoting. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
14:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I gave up on the "war" on bad English earlier. However, I do seem to observe a
WP:OWNERSHIP issue here, as evinced by the "Use Canadian Eng" instruction that I've just noticed. I do understand that CT has invested a lot of work on this article, but improvements contributed by others need to be accepted in good faith.
Deb (
talk)
13:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
As an admin, you have no excuse for being unfamiliar with
WP:ENGVAR. Your edits were not improvements, and you continued to editwar after being told why. Perhaps you could explain to everyone what your "this is English Wikipedia" edit comment meant, if it wasn't pure trolling, in light of the fact that you'd already been directed twice to why your edit was incorrect.
Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!14:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, the Canadian English template is to help editors more easily follow
MOS:RETAIN ("When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.") That's all it means, and these templates are pretty common. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
14:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
To begin with, my edit was not "incorrect". Even in American English, "probably" as an adverb is always correct, whereas "likely" is "correct" only in American English. I'd go further and suggest that neither word has a place in a wikipedia article, since both indicate opinion rather than fact; whether the Japanese-language sources you used as a reference actually voice this opinion I am, of course, unable to judge. Your preference for "Canadian English" is understandable, but it is a form of English less widely used than either "British" or "American" English, and your stricture on using it shows up a feeling of
ownership of the article and suggests the reason you don't like other people touching it. Your edit summaries were simply rude. Your use of the word "directed" is not only indicative of a belief that you have the right to tell other people what to do, but is inaccurate since you did not "direct" me anywhere. You just said "Look it up". Because I'm an admin, I am not allowed to be as rude and offensive to you as you have been to me and to others. I think you should be satisfied with the advantage that gives you.
Deb (
talk)
14:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
"Look it up" means "Look it up". Taking offense to that is beyond silly, especially as you're obviously connected to the internet. You were far more "rude" with your comment, and disruptive with your edit warring---on a TFA, no less. ENGVAR is long-established and well supported policy. If you have a problem with it, this is not the venue to vent about it.
Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!14:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
EngVar does not stipulate that only American or British English are allowed for international articles with no strong national ties. As the policy is written, Australian English, Indian English, Canadian English, etc. are all free for use, assuming they are the first English variant to be used consistently. To exclude Canadian English etc., one would need to open an RFC at the ENGVAR page.
As for being rude: I think both sides need to cut back on the rhetoric. "Likely" vs. "possibly" has been argued elsewhere (though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head), and to the best of my knowledge there's never been anything prescriptive set in the MOS. A reference to a (preferably Canadian) style guide would be a good place to start. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
"it would appear that the unqualified adverb began to drop out of use in mainstream British English in the 19th century while it continued to be used in areas remote from the influence of London—Scotland, Ireland, North America (both the U.S. and Canada), and later New Zealand. ... To sum up, the use of likely as an adverb without a qualifier such as more, most, very, or quite is well established in standard general use in North America. It is an old use, dating back to the 14th century. The strictures on it seem to have developed because it dropped out of mainstream literary use in England during the 19th century."
As far as date formats go, the ISO date format is acceptable in references so long as there are no full dates in the body of the article or the infobox. Seeing that there is one full date in the text, the ISDN dates should be converted to match. —Farix (
t |
c)
16:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Curly Turkey's right; MOS:DATEUNIFY stipulates that body dates should be consistent, and that reference dates should be consistent, but not that body dates should be consistent with reference dates. Hence the three subheadings. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
02:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I dont think it's the reason because Mr Litten write "At first he had identified this as a French product, but on re-inspection in 2011 understood that it was a German product by Carette (Matsumoto[2006],89;Matsumoto[2011], 125)". (p 11).
While I read Mr Litten book, I dont found any quote in p.12 to confirm the sentence "Katsudō Shashin may have been made in imitation of such examples of German or other Western animation".