From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
About [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Japanese or Japanese-style comics. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Visual Arts, Media and Sociology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Japan
 Talk Archive 1, 2  English language variant American English

New Article Pasted In

I just pasted in the new material several of us have been working on. This includes the Manga article itself plus a sources/explanation page called Manga/About this Article. The sources page contains information about where the article came from (partly, but only partly!) Wikipedia, plus other information.

Comments, suggestions, and changes are most welcome -- but please discuss them here on the talk page before editing the article itself. That way we can all reach agreement about what should and should not be included.

There are some topics and themes that were not addressed -- perhaps many, in fact. But this is an encyclopedia article, not a textbook. I hope that the references will point any interested readers to areas not developed.

The references need a comment. IMO, reference formats should not be changed, for reasons described on the Manga/About this Article page. The bibliography is long, but -- alas for the ego of authors -- although writers want to believe that their work will survive for decades for its brilliant insights, for its subtle and keen logic, and for its compelling prose, many articles like this are valuable primarily for their bibliographies. So the bibliography is long -- not complete; no one could create such a bibliography -- but comprehensive enough for our purposes.

Thanks to everyone who gave help and assistance!

Timothy Perper 07:44, 10 October 2008 (CDT)

The way to stop people editing the article is to get it approved. Approved articles have a locked version and a draft version. It seems unreasonable to ask people not to edit the article in its current form, so much so, that I have gone ahead and removed that request from the header. Trust cititzendium authors to approach editing it in a constructive way. I'm sure you we be happy with the result. Chris Day 09:05, 10 October 2008 (CDT)
Huh? I didn't say anything about preventing people from editing the article or wanting it locked against edits. I think you've missed my point completely...
The point is not to stop people from editing. The point is to get people to discuss what they want to change before plunging in and deleting things. Discussion is better than making random changes and increasing the general tension level. Here's what I wrote and you removed (without discussion, may I add?):
Improvements to the article are welcome. However, please do not edit this page directly. Instead, put suggested changes and emendations on the talk page first, where they can be discussed before being included. That way we can avoid degrading the article into chaos.
Not an unreasonable request, I'd think. And it says nothing like what you seem to think it said.
Timothy Perper 09:41, 10 October 2008 (CDT)

You want people to discuss changes before making edits, right? The key sentence was this one "However, please do not edit this page directly". Maybe I misunderstood that point. All I'm saying is that people will likely come in and make edits they deem to be collaborative. There is little chance they will heed a message at the top, or worse will not bother editing/commenting. Chris Day 10:16, 10 October 2008 (CDT)

I certainly hope that they will make edits they deem to be helpful and collaborative! Basically, I want to invite people to discuss those changes first. How about this?
Improvements to the article are welcome. Please put suggested changes, comments, and criticisms on the talk page so we can discuss them collaboratively and share the rationale for the changes. Then we can make collaboratively vetted changes in the article.
Do you think that is better?
Timothy Perper 11:46, 10 October 2008 (CDT)
Might be better to define changes. I assume you do not mean copy editing?
Having said that, personally I would hold off on the sign. The main reason is that it is redundant with standard practicise at citizendium.

A great many problems could be avoided if people were to use the "talk" pages--i.e., the pages you arrive at by pressing the "discussion" tab--before making any potentially controversial changes. Polite communication is a large part of professionalism. from CZ:Professionalism

As a rule of thumb, it is better to discuss what is wrong with a piece of text on the talk page before you entirely hack it to bits, and give the others a chance to respond first. Giving notice in this way isn't necessary if you are making small edits, but if there is any "hacking" going on, it is necessary; it certainly helps smooth the wheels of discourse. from CZ:How_to_Collaborate

Personally, I would hold off on the note unless there is a problem. Chris Day 12:33, 10 October 2008 (CDT)
OK -- sounds good to me. Thanks for your help! Timothy Perper 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference Formatting

The references in the manga article are all formatted to include the URLs as a visible part of the reference. It sounds obvious but it isn't. It won't happen if one uses the web citation template. That template hides the URL although it remains active as a hyperlink. So if someone downloads the article or prints it out -- and we've used the template -- then the URLs won't be there. That is just plain useless. So I didn't use the template, and now the URLs download and print. It's a glitch of some kind in the software.

Timothy Perper 07:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across a comment by Sanger -- at,1757.0.html -- saying the University of Chicago style manual is the reference guide for style here. UChi mandates the inclusion of the URL, not hiding it under something else as a hyperlink. Timothy Perper 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New YAOI subpage

If there aren't any objections or reasons against it, I'll include some new material on the growth of YAOI from User:Timothy Perper/SandboxManga, including a graph I made of web searches for YAOI between 2002 and 2008. I'll wait a day or so, then go ahead. Timothy Perper 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi should probably be a separate article. –Tom Morris 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)