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

Talk:Nicovideo Encyclopedia

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hold on, hold on

Soo, this suppose to be everything said on Nicovideo Encyclopedia? I don't know for sure what's going off, but if were moving all info to these pages, why are we also moving factual info off the char pages? I don't quite understand. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, this is what happened:

Tosiaki translates and transcribes Nicopedia stuff to the Touhou wiki. I don't believe he actually told anyone that this stuff was coming from Nicopedia. For several pages, he placed the Nicopedia stuff OVER what was currently on the page if the two overlapped (which logically made sense in some cases, cause otherwise he'd be repeating stuff already stated on the page). Thus many character facts were removed and replaced with Nicopedia's version of those facts (but they were still factual) while many other... debatable things from Nicopedia came in too, as the entirety of Nicopedia was transcribed and came onto each character's page.

I don't believe anyone knew this was a direct translation of nicopedia stuff and thought it was just Tosiaki's own writings (well, that was the case for me). Regardless, over the course of some months, other wiki edittors continued updating and adding stuff to the wiki, often modifying or adding new factual information to the character pages (which meant modifying or adding new facts to the nicopedia stuff)

After a bit too many questionable additions from Nicopedia for some people, explosions happened, anger was thrown around, words were said, and Tosiaki proceeded to remove the Nicopedia stuff from the characters' pages into this area. Somewhere along the line, it came to light that the original edits were translated transcriptions of Nicopedia (I think?). Unfortunately, by then, many characters have had so many other edits added to them that they were nigh unrecognizable from the Nicopedia stuff. Tosiaki removed it anyways cause... I dunno, sifting through it and segregating the nico stuff from the non-nico stuff would have been nigh impossible. Although I personally think he may have gone a bit overboard. Maribel's page in its entirety had nearly no Nicopedia stuff left after we all butchered each other in regards to Nicopedia's chart of speculations leading me to smash that thing with a hammer of rage before rebuilding it almost from the ground up.

At this point, someone should probably go around and start "repairing" the pages. Adding back factual stuff while keeping the more debatable stuff out of it, and then we can gradually add in the more debatable stuff as is appropriate. In some cases, something as simple as a revert may help start that process, but would be far from achieving that, I think. ...................please don't make me do it. QQ I was supposed to be on break until SoPM came out. Argh (...and yet, since the big Nico removal, I think I for Maribel and Flandre (incomplete) and Kief for Patchy (incomplete, I think?) are the only ones that made any restorations. Probably because no one else knows what the hell is going on (I know I didn't Oo) TiamatRoar 23:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I might consider joining in the process. I'm especially paying close attention to Yuyuko's page, and I was about to bring it up but didn't want to touch the sore wound just yet - Maybe I could've brought it up sometime in April when I would be less busy with certain stuff in my real life and ko wiki? To be honest I'm quite disappointed at how some factual stuff that could've stayed has been removed. I've been contemplating on carrying out a systematic revert-revising process on all Touhou characters that he has edited to make sure that only the good meat can remain. It'll be a long process, but it has to be done at some point.
Any ideas on this? Any "I agree"s or "I disagree"s? It seems like if I can carefully trace back on the edits done I could probably piece back some of the information that can be left on certain pages. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think for some pages, simply re-adding EVERYTHING back before Tosiaki removed it to add to the Nicopedia encyclopedia page, and then removing the more questionable parts (or fixing the grammar etc on the less questionable parts that ended up sounding... odd) might work best. And then anything that's a grey area can be debated on and added in as appropriate. For others, however, they might require a more complex solution, depending on how hard or easy it is to discern what's factual, what's not, what's Nicopedia that should be reworded, what might be a bit too much of a copy and paste of Nicopedia to be ethically correct to leave in, whether or not something is too much of a stretch, notability, etc etc. In particularly bad cases, a complete revert to before Nicopedia was added at all may be appropriate (maybe, maybe not. I haven't looked over everything) TiamatRoar 23:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have pulled apart enough sentences as far as Patchy is concerned such that copying them is no longer an issue. My only question with Patchy is if the abilities subsection is part of the standard detail that is to be included in pages. If so, then I can restore it sans more debatable stuff. - Kiefmaster99 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll join in and see what I can do with Yuyuko's page and several others. In the meantime I'm getting really busy with work in real life as well as ko wiki stuff so I might not have enough time to go through everything but eventually I'll get to them. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 03:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree (unless I'm misunderstanding what's been said). In any cases where existing info was overwritten, edits should go back to before the Nicopedia info was added. I don't edit much anymore, so I shouldn't have as much of a voice, but here's my take fwiw. I think it's inappropriate to overwrite what other people have written unless the info is factually incorrect. Revisions for grammar/spelling/etc, restructuring for template changes, and so on I understand, but sweeping delete-copy-pastes like what seem to have happened here (again, if I'm understanding this correctly) invalidate the time and effort put into these pages by wiki contributors. Why edit anything if it's later going to be superseded by a different wiki/source? With that in mind - and as much as is feasible - the pre-Nicopedia edits should be restored (as I understand they have been) with later, non-nico edits added back. If Tosiaki (or whoever else) would like to add info from Nicopedia, then that's fine, but it should be individual additions, not wholesale revisions. K.B. 03:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, actually you're on the same track with us. I was thinking about re-adding some of the factual stuff that he may have accidentally removed or simply replaced with nicopedia stuff. And yes I think I strongly agree with your suggestion here: That information from Nicopedia stuff should be individual additions instead of replacing what was there. I share the sentiment with you that replacing all the info with Nicopedia stuff "invalidates the time and effort put into these pages by wiki contributors". If people think the section would become too long or something, then we could trim the paragraphs once in a while, can't we? --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 03:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. K.B. 04:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries man! --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 05:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I have pretty much reverted Patchouli's article to before the Nicopedia stuff was added, with some exceptions. Over the course of the Nicopedia additions, Trivia was cut down because, well, if they were now being mentioned in the main, it's no longer needed. Information in this way may have been lost.
My intention was to restore content that was cut, regardless of origin, and do a thorough check on grammar/etc. The content restoration doesn't seem to impact other existing edits, as there were almost no real conflicts, afaik at least for Patchouli, to begin with. My opinion is that any legit Nicopedia stuff, or at least the 50% that I didn't find a major problem with, needs to be merged with our existing sections comfortably. - Kiefmaster99 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Whoops, more stuff taken out than I originally thought. - Kiefmaster99 06:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway... I just want to make myself clear about why I am against replacing old material with Nicopedia material. I'll admit, some Nicopedia material is good, and as Momiji explained to me earlier in the IRC, addition of Nicopedia material into this wiki could be helpful in its own rights - It provides us insight into the Japanese perspective on Touhou project. Given the number of editors on this wiki I often believe that this wiki is mostly oriented towards the western fanbase, but there's no problem with adding some Japanese taste on this international table that this wiki is (well, after all, this wiki isn't only used by American Touhou fans).
The issue is, however, replacing existing information with Nicopedia stuff. As K.B. brought up, the existing information was the result of years of contributions and edits from the older editors who have provided their own insights and perspectives into Touhou related material through those edits. To see them get replaced by Nicopedia material is, to me, somewhat an unfortunate loss of those different perspectives into Touhou.
Momiji said earlier that the en wiki has pretty much become an international Touhou wiki where a lot of users from different countries gather to gain information and learn about Touhou. If we're now serving the international fanbase of Touhou, why not include some variety of perspectives and insights into Touhou material? To attain that variety, I believe that the best way to do that is to accept some of the Nicopedia material and at the same time keep some of the original material. Again, I repeat some of K.B.'s argument here, but if the information, regardless whether it is the information originally on the page or information from Nicopedia, is factually incorrect, then revisions are welcome, but for factually correct ones we could keep them on the article. A good system of editing would be Tosiaki adding the Nicopedia material, and we trim the article if necessary. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 05:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is very true that we are now fairly international. We do receive considerable notice by the Japanese themselves, or I guess enough for them to recognize the whole wiki move.
I have no problem if Japanese fanon is imported because aside from helping us understand their memes (which was the original purpose), it also offers insight into a relevant fanbase, as the original language for Touhou is Japanese. At the same time however, I do consider Touhou Wiki to also serve as an outlet to publish English fanon, so that other fanbases may learn from us; that information needs to be preserved and only tampered by editors familiar with English fanon. - Kiefmaster99 06:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a question as to what you people all mean with regards to "replacing," since it was pretty much all "added in," rather than "added in, with all original material deleted." The one section that I could find applicable was the opening sections that I deleted, in which I found a lot of questionable statements not backed up elsewhere, like the characterization of Yuyuko as a ditz. I didn't find anything like that in canon, so if it is to be included, perhaps it should be written as "and is thus commonly thought of by fans as a ditz" instead. I did remark earlier in Talk:Touhou Wiki that I do think we should at least give the idea of "mentioning fanon in canon sections" at least a try to see if it could be beneficial or not, so perhaps this could be one application of this.--としあき 09:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to say this earlier since it is more of a personal matter that could be simply seen as complaining, but this task of translating the Nicovideo Encyclopedia was probably one of the most thankless, least enjoyable, time-consuming jobs ever (besides my 3+ hours spent on writing the table for the vertical version of the SWR timeline, but that's a different issue). I don't even know why I do it. But, I think that if we are going to include stuff from the Nicovideo Encyclopedia, and if we are going to include any speculations and fanon on the character pages, I think we should be more inclusionist for stuff from the Nicovideo Encyclopedia, and simply mention that it is from the Nicovideo Encyclopedia if it is questionable. Since this is a fan wiki, I don't think it is necessary to trim down any character pages as long as the pages don't pass 200kb―as long as they are not longer than the page on Wikipedia for the Gaza War, at least.--としあき 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Who made these?

More to the point: has ZUN blessed these as canon? If he has, a link verifying this would be in order. These strike me as fan-made but there isn't any info about the creators and there aren't any links to the videos themselves. Clarification would be appreciated. K.B. 20:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing: Some of these that I've been reading have never been mentioned by ZUN as canon, but Tosiaki's argument when he created these pages is that (@Tosiaki: Correct me if I'm wrong) these point to those things point to, and are somewhat important related matters to the canon materials. I'm still quite uncomfortable myself with having these on the touhou wiki, but, yeah, that was my two cents. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything canon is essentially listed in the page here with the exception of the ファンサイト(東方元ネタ関連) section. Wikis like the Nicovideo Encyclopedia, the Pixiv Encyclopedia, the Japanese Touhou Wiki, the English Touhou Wiki (this website), and Toho Moto Neta should be thought of as secondary sources. History is a useful analogy: historical documents and artifacts are the primary sources that provide all information, and history books are secondary sources that analyze them.--としあき 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge back into the pages?

I do tend to find a number of info on these nico pages to be factual and that these factual info arn't on the the char pages. Even if it does contain fanon/jokes covered in parts of these pages, I think we should merge the info back. Any opinions? Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Originally I proposed simply reverting everything so it was all back in, and then removing the more questionable or fanon/joke parts. That's not much of an option now though (too many changes to various pages made since then) but more acceptable/factual bits and pieces can/should still be added back on a case by case basis, I think. Unfortunately (yet expectedly) opinions tend to differ on some grey areas regarding notable-ness (quite a lot of the nico stuff falls under the "Wouldn't it be better to just link Wikipedia? Or not?" and "Do/Should we have to list EVERY reference to a real life figure/object/whatever?" murky grey areas). TiamatRoar (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I did provide a suggestion on Tosi's talk page on how we can find out factual/questionable/fanon/joke parts on pages to take info out easier. What we can do is use highlight colours. Here it is:
  •   : Info highlighted in this is definite factual info and can go onto the pages. This will also be used when the info is already on the char pages.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is questionable, but can still go onto the pages. References could be used.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is questionable, but cannot go onto the pages and may need to be discussed if necessary. References could be used to make it less questionable.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is fanon or a Nico joke and may either go under the fanon section or not transferred at all.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is definite no no, and cannot go onto the pages as it may be a bad nico joke. It would need to be discussed if necessary as it shouldn't be used straight away.
I changed them a little bit compared to the one on Tosi's talk. Opinions? :) Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we add "inaccurate canon indicating information" somewhere? Also, I think you're using too much color here. Using just three: "red,yellow and green" sounds enough for me.--Doncot (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
lol I realised there is a bit too many colours when I'm doing Yuuka's, so yes, less colour and "inaccurate canon indicating information"! XD Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand the difference between yellow and orange, can't these two be combined? Also it would be helpful if you could add some mark for "finished merging/already there" in the character page (I've already used "slash" for this purpose).--Doncot (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yea, we'll use <s></s> (slash) to show that info is already on the pages or has been merged. About the colours yellow/orange, I thought you wanted a separate one with "inaccurate canon indicating information", but imho, I think having orange for "inaccurate canon indicating information" does sound OK compared to yellow having "questionable". I'm not the one to fully organise the colour scheme, so if you want to change it to whatever suits you best, feel free :) Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 18:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
>I thought you wanted a separate one with "inaccurate canon indicating information"
Sorry for the confusion, in the original scheme (the one above), "orange" says "fanon or Nico joke" so I wanted to make it a more general description, but looks like I failed to put in into words that could be understood.--Doncot (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nico Sorting Project

These pages are getting out of hand, so I'm gonna start a minor project to sort out all these pages (using my suggestion above) and to merge information back onto the character pages. I've said this before and I'll say it again, this wiki shouldn't be showing articles of other wiki's, but for a gaming series and that's why I want these pages sorting out. I would really appreciate it if someone can contribute and help :D Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 12:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but do we actually even need to merge these things? I mean if the editor wants to pick some information off Nicopedia, then they should do it directly from the source to whichever page on this wiki (perfect if it comes with a reference link and a date stamp). The translations we have here is just too outdated, with unknown sources and unknown references. And most of all, we don't know how much accurate the translations are, and even if it is accurate, how are the English-only editors going to find out whether the information is true or not? Frankly, I believe edits on wikis should be done by people who know what they're writing. Also, not to mention the fact that even if we are merging them, we can't get away from the copyright issue (Nicopedia has its own licence and doesn't work under Creative Commons License), in order to make it "clean", we need to rewrite it in our own words, which I believe is going to be a pain job applying to all of the sentences. --Doncot (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll be frankly honest, but the copyright issue never came to my mind because they're translated text. I'm aware that the translations are outdated, but like I shown with the suggestion above, we can work ways to find known correct info and re-write it into our own words (we can use my sandbox to re-write the text if needed). Once a page is fully reviewed, we'll delete the page. Deal? :) Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sounds fair to me.--Doncot (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Even translations are protected under copyright. The only way to avoid any problems is to paraphrase the text, which shouldn't be too much of a problem since they'd have to be rewritten anyways to fit into our wiki style. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Now, I have a question regarding the OR provision, in particular this line.
"but should be respected as their original work that the editors have made and not be copy pasted on this wiki."
I don't think copyright distinguishes between information that is OR or not. Therefore we should not be excluding information based on perceived ownership. And anyways, this isn't something that sourcing can't fix. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, come to think of now that notice was a bit dumb thing to put, so I'll delete it. What I wanted to say, is that since Nicopedia contains much more information compared this wiki, delivering too much of their words can easily cause this wiki's pages to lose its color. I don't want to make this wiki a mere translation site of another wiki, at least on the character pages--Doncot (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concern and share your sentiments. We do have a different set of guidelines, so everything should play out nicely naturally. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)