• Welcome to Touhou Wiki!
  • Registering is temporarily disabled. Check in our Discord server to request an account and for assistance of any kind.

Talk:Touhou Wiki

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talks by major topics

Workspace

Discussions


Re:Re:Colors/Colours

Further from Talk:Touhou Wiki/Archive 9#Re:Colors/Colours

From what Kiefmaster said, "and maybe we could allow for change of spelling based on how ZUN uses it", which I can agree with. ☢ Quwanti 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in what Momiji has to say about this. Code Slasher 17:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Zun's spelling is in no way coherent, consistent, or reliable for future use. See Flandre here, or everything else on that page for that matter. There's no guarantee that there'll be a good usage of English, or even a singular use of English. So my answer from here stands; use en_US. For the record, I don't like adding layers and layers of rules and whatnot, but I'll probably eventually be called Americentric at some point anyway. So there you go. Momiji 20:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
In closing, the proposal is dropped. - Kiefmaster99 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki statuses

Hello everyone; I've been going through a review of all the other language wikis here and checking out their activity, with the possibility of weeding out dead/dying wikis and/or adding new ones. Here's a rundown of everything here in order of activity, and their respective statuses and possible improvements.

  • English (en) [edits]: Crazy active.
  • Chinese (zh) [edits]: KyoriAsh's replay updates artificially boost the article count, with the intention of attracting editors by halo effect. Has had issues attracting Chinese editors in the past, but that may be changing.
  • Russian (ru) [edits]: Essentially second place in article updates.
  • Spanish (es) [edits]: Lost a bit of traffic due to the move, but slowly gaining pace again. Also, a possible candidate for an adminship.
  • Polish (pl) [edits]: Previously a bit more active, but losing speed quickly.
  • Italian (it) [edits]: Initally slow, gained a small group of editors that disintegrated due to adminship drama. Under 50 articles.
  • Ukrainian (uk) [edits]: A handful of article edits this year, otherwise dominated by interwiki linking. Under 50 articles.
  • Portuguese (pt) [edits]: Mostly died post-move, but has picked up activity rapidly in the last month. Under 50 articles.
  • Swedish (sv) [edits]: Completely dominated by interwiki linking. Under 10 articles. Will probably depublicize it in the meantime so Kennyman can work on it in private.
  • French (fr) and German (de) wikis are their own projects and are not included in this, even though they are linked to from the frontpage.

This isn't an execution docket for dead wikis, but more of a call to arms to help out the less active wikis. If you're familiar with these other languages, and could possible contact Touhou communities in those regions for awareness, it'd help bring these wikis back to life. I don't exactly want to kill wikis off, since the whole purpose of this site is to bring all the different regional Touhou communities together (along with being a Touhou wiki :D). But completely withered wikis are a bit of a waste of resources. And I'm always looking at adding new wikis that could potentially become quite active.

Anyway, I'm currently in consideration of starting a Korean section to the site, and potentially others (Dutch?). If you have any opinions for/against any of these wikis, or think you can help with them, please chime in. Thanks! Momiji 22:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

For me a wiki is good active when it has at least 25 edits a day, but it seems it may be too high. Anyway, I have seen fora in Spanish, Polish and they were pretty active there. Another thing to note is that there actually excists a good Spanish fandom, but they just wont show up on the wiki (yet) (I am saying this due to, for example, touhou video's with Spanish subtitles). Maybe Nazeo can reach those people...
Other then that, I would like to see a Dutch wiki, but I have patience. ☢ Quwanti 22:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll add that to the potential additions. Momiji 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Incubator is required before on to the list to prevent any inactive circumstances - KyoriAsh 22:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that seems good. I will contact the Dutch forum immediately. ☢ Quwanti 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: "No original research" rule for character pages

Concerning the previous discussion that took place here, there seems to have been several people favoring a "no original research" rule for character pages. The purpose of this RfC, thus, is to affirm that this is according to consensus.

To be unambiguous about this proposal, here is the comment by Deltasierra4, if people would like to give a "support" or "oppose" to this comment:

it's best if we preserve each character's page mainly with only facts about that character (e.g. what she does in a game, what's her appearance, and her character profiles from each game).

Comments? Votes?

  • Support If the character pages are to be 100% reliable, then original research (such as speculation, inferences, connecting two things that have not been connected in canon, everything fanon, etc.) should be separate from the main character pages.--Tosiaki 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Support withdrawn. Awaiting further opinions before giving a "support" or "oppose."--Tosiaki 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment First, we should probably define what OR is:
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source... (Wikipedia)
The current status quo does not explicitly rule out "No Original Research". The relevant guidelines that we currently follow are:
General: Use material from official sources to write summaries and such. This includes but is not limited to Dialog, Scenario, Omake.txts, Print Works, Official Profiles, ZUN Interviews, and ZUN E-Mails. Keep any and all speculation off pages and inferences to a minimum.
Additional Information: For Fandom, be able to back up your claims. While it is plausible that character A may be crossed with character B from series C, if there isn't any/very little evidence that they are, it's not a fact.
Additional Information: Do not post any speculation unless it has already gained reputable status. Otherwise, it's just forcing your views onto other people.
It would make no sense for this to only affect Character pages without affecting pages of a similar class. This would include Locations.
This does place an unusual burden, and is weird considering we conduct OR with regards to translations in other parts of this website. - Kiefmaster99 14:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We already ask that editors properly cite their sources of information. As for the non-canon info, we include it but we specifically delineate between it and canon. Momiji 15:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OOooooh, that's what original research is? I thought original research was using sources outside the canon to infer things (such as saying "Prince Shoutoku historically did such and such, therefore Toyatsomimi must have as well." Truthfully, to disregard anything just because it isn't stated directly seems like it won't work for Touhou (or most media in general). For example, going by the strictest definition of "no analysis or synthesis of published material", we would be unallowed to include what IMHO are no-brainers like "That girl who's fire is in the shape of a phoenix was probably Mokou" or maybe even "Marisa is Reimu's friend." come to think about it (has that ever been explicitly directly stated anywhere instead of simply inferred from all their interactions?). To be honest, I can't think of a single fan wiki that doesn't allow at least some inference from analysis/synthesis of official sources. ...is there any other wiki that bars all analysis and synthesis of official works completely? Cause I know the One Piece Wiki, Super Mario Wiki, and Warhammer 40k Wiki sure as heck don't. TiamatRoar 16:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that would still be OR, but in a sense is more speculative too (and is contestable). But yes, this would also remove other minor inferences, analyses, and syntheses such as "Her last name, "Knowledge", appears to be a reference to her amount of knowledge", as ZUN never explicitly stated it was. - Kiefmaster99 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be better if instead a definition of the word "Knowledge" be included with a disclaimer that ZUN hasn't acknowledged that was the definition he had in mind? While that one seems a bit too trivial to the point of most people caring, if you were to extend a ban against a thing to its logical conclusion, I'm not sure that'd be a good thing. I was under the impression that lots of people liked such tidbits as Yuugi and Suika's names matching the four oni devas in Japan myth, even if ZUN never explicitly said he based their names off of those guys. I know the One Piece wiki goes out of its way to state what bird each female character was named after or what famous pirate many characters were named after despite Oda only confirming some of them, but also disclaims that Oda didn't outright state that was the reason he chose that name (except for cases where he did state as such, obviously). Certainly the Phoenix Wright wiki goes out of its way to explain the pun behind most of its series' characters' names, even if only some of those puns were ever outright explicitly stated to be the case by the developrs. If anything, my own issue with the Nicovideo stuff was that it seemed to go way overboard with pages upon pages of stuff where a simple paragraph explaining the meaning of the word or linking to wikipedia would have sufficed. TiamatRoar 18:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
"Appears" already serves that purpose. Though yes, for other names, I'm unsure if it's needed. For Suika and Yuugi, the relation is heavily implied based on other supporting detail (such as SC names), and would count as an inference (which would easily pass editor approval if challenged). It'd probably get a bit awkward to have to encounter that same disclaimer on every char page though. Change of tone may help serve to accomplish that (appears, probably, likely, etc).
This wiki is similar to Nicopedia, but the "speculation bar" is simply higher here than there. I can also echo TiatmatRoar's sentiments of going a bit overboard. - Kiefmaster99 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand what this would change from the status quo as listed above. Are you suggesting that every fact on the character pages should require a citation? How about just citing things that aren't from obvious sources (official profiles or articles focusing on that character), like a line of dialogue somewhere or a spell card or a manga chapter? I think people are generally doing it that way already.
If that status quo list is pretty much what you meant, I'm all for codifying it. Kapow 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification "No original research" actually means "no speculation whatsoever, regardless of how well-known it is," not just "speculation to a minimum." It also means "no fandom" rather than merely "for fandom, be able to back up your claims." Basically, it would be to limit the character pages (and presumably all pages dealing with canon) to what could be stated on Wikipedia.--Tosiaki 02:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is true that currently, the page wikipedia:List of Touhou Project characters does not have that much information about the characters. However, that does not mean that more information could not be added to that page. If the information could be added there, it could be suggested that that could be a test as to whether the information could be added here as well.--Tosiaki 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
comment/oppose: Great, all day after working in a prep-up korean wiki I come back and see this =_=
Let me clarify something because it seems like you're seriously misunderstanding my statement that you're using to represent your opinion: I'm not suggesting that we keep it ONLY to facts, and I was not keeping anything like "no original research" in mind when I typed that up. I'm sorry but it seems like you're trying to change my statement into something that I've never had any thoughts about. I'll third what Tiamat has pretty much summed up at this point. So, in such a turn of events, I'll be the clown and "go against my own statement". --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 03:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure where to put this.

I was halfway through fixing the redlinks for the music (as seen from the popularity poll list) by making new redirects when it occurred to me that it'd be better to just find the old pages and move them to the new destinations, fixing links to the old pages along the way. Can someone with powers delete all the pages I just created so I can do that to the ones I made new pages for? Assuming that's the right thing to do, anyway, tell me if it isn't. - 04:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)