User talk:Tosiaki

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi, welcome to Touhou Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Suwako Moriya page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Pooshlmer (Talk) 01:32, September 15, 2010

translation contributions[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the romaji and translations MaronaPossessed 19:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

If I had more time (and more confidence in reading Japanese), I would try to translate all the untranslated ones... ah, I guess that this will be something I will get around to eventually.--Tosiaki 19:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)



Welcome to Touhou Wiki! Please enjoy your stay, and we wish you many successful edits.

Check out the most Recent changes to the Wiki, for a good idea on current editing work.
Questions? You can ask at the central discussion page or on the talk page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page. You can also chat with us directly on IRC in #touhouwiki, at
Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.
Please sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognise you!
Confused about Wiki editing? We have some general guidelines we like to follow.

We're glad to have a new member of the community!

Momiji 23:37, 30 December 2010 (PST)

Other account?[edit]

I saw you previously registered "Tosiakiー", do you want this account deleted? Momiji 20:05, 31 December 2010 (PST)

Yes, do delete that - I was just testing whether or not I could use non-ascii characters in my username.Tosiaki 20:54, 31 December 2010 (PST)
Done! Momiji 23:47, 31 December 2010 (PST)


Obviously poor oversight on my part. But the monster design is originally from Defiant of Shrine Maiden. Proof:

I do agree the general monster is from Romancing Saga 3 and there's definitely a lot of weird word plays because the Japanese in general do not know how to transliterate things into english words because they lack knowledge of english. However, I am confident the word "bansy" is suppose to be "banshee". most names in general are depicted from mythologies.

Rule of thumb is never translate things literally. It has to make sense from both japanese and english perspective.

Comments and discussion[edit]

I'd like to remind you to please keep any comments and discussion to talk pages, and make sure you sign (with ~~~~) any comments you make. Thanks. Momiji 09:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Elly and Kurumi[edit]

Hi Tosiaki. What makes you think that the true reason why Elly hasn't had a battle for a long time is cause of Kurumi? I mean, there's no real connection between Kurumi and Elly. Even if it isn't touching "pure speculation", it's still speculation. I mean, if you can prove this connection, I'll changer my mind. thanks Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only do almost all sources about Kurumi and Elly say that, but reasonable inferences should be stated, even if they are not proven.Tosiaki 14:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's sounds like speculation to me. Also, Quwanti's edit is also true. Undo. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 14:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not quite speculation. All sources make this kind of conclusion. Besides, if Kurumi is guarding the lake, saying she does not allow any passer-bys, and Elly has not fought for a long time, it is common sense only to make that conclusion.--Tosiaki 14:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what exactly is she guarding? She simply says to Reimu "I'm this lake's gatekeeper", and simaler to Marisa "I'm the gatekeeper of the lake", which can add doubts. Also, non of this can be said on Kurumi's page. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Since she says she is the gatekeeper, 門番, as means "entrance," one would think that there is an entrance to the lake that she is guarding, and that one must go through that entrance to get to it.--Tosiaki 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: About Kurumi/Elly[edit]

From here

Hi again Tosiaki. I'm going to agree upon including the info with what you said on my talk. However, it is, as said on my talk, not 100% official, but yeah, it's enough. I'm going to agree with ending this edit war. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling discrepancies[edit]

So what's your opinion on this? How should this be used with the other points you made (such as Luna Child, etc) We should compile something, somehow,someway to address said points eh? ♥★♦ 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, include all alternate spellings below the main spelling in the infobox, including a reference to where the spelling came from.--Tosiaki 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Should I do this know, or do you have something in mind? (I also ask for you to help provide spelling as I can not read japanese.) ♥★♦ 23:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As in Luna Child, each official spelling has a reference with a <ref> tag (just to make sure you aren't being confused about what I am saying here).--Tosiaki 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Using that page as a reference? I'm with you if you wanna do that! ♥★♦ 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean.--Tosiaki 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Then let's rock it! ♥★♦ 23:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to FN Standardized![edit]

Our team can work forward for the Final Standardization!

Bring forth your best as we'll need it! ♥★♦ 03:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a Solution![edit]

I spent all yesterday thinking how to keep your info that you bring to the table while keeping it neat while being visible. And I think I have it; check out Conceptuals, it has everything you want and should satisfy both sides. Please, I need your feedback on how to improve it etc, etc. (How it will be presented, I placed in the Char Standardized page, and we can talk there for location) ♥★♦ 02:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. The White Rabbit of Inaba is a critical part of Tewi as a concept, that to leave it out of Tewi's page would not be good at all.
  2. Strength is a critical part of the concept of each character, and therefore their fighting abilities should go in their concept. In fact, each of the character's pages should have an explanation of their strength somewhere, even if there is no section called "strength" (for example, if it could fit into the "abilities" section).
  3. About Utusho, there is no reason why that bit about nuclear fusion should not be included either on the page in "additional information." After all, is the "Some other thing that doesn't fit under these two" in the standardization present for no reason?

Conceptuals may not be a bad idea, but it does not seem like it would not be a good idea to remove important information from the characters' pages.--Tosiaki 02:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems like I have misunderstood "Conceptuals" a bit if it was an additional section in the character pages, and that the "Conceptuals" page would duplicate it.

Regardless, The White Rabbit of Inaba is definitely a part of Tewi's concept, as are each character's strength.--Tosiaki 02:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To that, there is a lot of tags used, and I promise the info is still is good in the Conceptuals, this is for aesthetics purposes again. (I never denied they were part of the concepts!) ♥★♦ 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be good in Conceptuals, but that information is still important to be on Tewi's page itself. Perhaps the level four headings could be replaced with fake headings so as not to crowd the table of contents, but it really is critical information for Tewi as a concept.--Tosiaki 02:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, give that a shot then.
I still want this for the other Char pages though...

♥★♦ 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I was planning to either...

  • Have the info moved into Conceptuals
  • Have the info moved into Conceptuals and include a summary in the char page with a link to [[Contemplations/Conceptuals|Conceptuals] with the rest of it.
  • Have the info moved into Conceptuals, have the tagline used (but no == ==), link to the info using [[]] with the # to specifically link to it and under the tagline a short summary to get the User interested to read further into it.

I perfer option 3, don't you? :3

What you think? ♥★♦ 02:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if the information stayed on the characters' pages, for the reasons I listed above.--Tosiaki 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. That wasn't an option (lol) Joking aside, for the reasons I list above, I prefer that the info is moved in order to preserve the Aesthetics on the page.

(Think of Conceptuals as a divider for a portfolio. The information inside doesn't change, it just is better organized)

♥★♦ 02:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not exactly say that moving very important information off of the characters' pages is a "better way of organizing" things, though. If there is an aesthetics problem, then that means that perhaps some things with its aesthetics need to be changed, like presenting things in a more spaced manner, or changing how things appear in the table of contents, but to change its actual contents based off of aesthetics seems a bit questionable.--Tosiaki 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any amount of spacing is going to fix the Contents Box engulfing most of the screen... I also don't see why not to have the information listed off the page on onto another one is detrimental to the information. Hmm... Could I show you how it looks on the Tewi Page? (I promise to give it my best and the attention it deserves to win you over!) ♥★♦ 02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can show, but given how the White Rabbit of Inaba is probably the most fundamental part of Tewi's concept, removing any of that information from Tewi's page is probably not a good idea in any case.

Besides, there are simple things that one can do to the contents box to make it smaller.--Tosiaki 02:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Tewi Inaba page, I have added {{TOC limit|limit=3}} and there you go - a shortened table of contents. Doesn't that seem simple?--Tosiaki 02:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


I just gave you the green light on the "Fake Headers," but can I still attempt to show you in Tewi's page? ♥★♦ 02:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated earlier, you can show me, but to remove information on that page pertaining to the White Rabbit of Inaba still does not seem like a good idea.--Tosiaki 02:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kk, then. (Thanks for humoring me) After this is done, I still ask how you find it; (and if not up to snuff, we'll go with urs then) ♥★♦ 02:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gah! Let's fix this!![edit]

There's a misunderstanding! I was doing some personal work for collage at the same time yesterday, so things got a little carried away for me on how I was editing stuff on the wiki.

Your idea on using entry names for Fandom is in fact a good idea. What made me think it isn't is because of the phrases used, and after just looking at this edit it made me think otherwise. Perhaps it's a good idea to use these entry's, but keep them small and simple. For example, this text "Nothing special about her appearance except armpits, which must be appealed to" got me confused for a bit, so I suggest simply using something like "Armpit meme" or something like that. However just to point out, I still recommend trying to use as small info as possible for backups.

So hoping you accept it, I apologise *offers hand shake* ^.^ Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 21:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do not carry any ill-feelings against any individual, although I do admit that it might have been better for you to reply in the relevant talk pages where I left comments previously, but of course, there is nothing wrong with contrary opinions themselves.
In any case, I guess that the name is quite long, although I think that something more along the lines of "armpits as a necessity" might be better.--Tosiaki 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Then I'll take this as "things are OK" ;) I'll try my best to get back to those talks next time. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
However, when it comes to a fanon where the character gains an ability to do something they usually cannot do in canon, I do think it would be a good idea to start such entries as "an ability to"--Tosiaki 02:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I thought we're using the word "ability" as official lol. Well, I'm 50/50 on that one mate as it depends on how the text flows because I think it does seem kinda odd to use this word under fanom due to using it as official under the Abilities section ^^'.
The entry names I did on my sandbox I believe shall be fine (I also see no problem on choosing names as a joke (since it's fandom), such as the first one I did, "Speaking like a man", which I think fits well (Although I do expect you to disagree lol ^^)). I also just realised that this acts like TVtropes lol.
Going off topic, I'm still trying to find a good word that means "Interesting facts" ^^' Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Before giving names to all entries for every character, though, I would like to suggest to hold off on some characters, namely Youmu, Alice, Reisen, and several others. For the main character and some others, I do think it would be a good idea to have bullets, and if so, to have a title for each entry to make it easier to read. However, I still do think that sometime later, it might be a good idea for some characters to have a fandom section in paragraph form, so until I get to editing the fandom sections for those other characters, I think it would be best to hold off on giving names for the fandom sections for all characters. The main idea behind having a paragraph form is when the information is of a more general nature - namely, when it would not be more convenient to give names for all bullets, then bullets would only make it more difficult to read, not harder. I do think that for some characters, but not all, it would be more convenient and easier to read if it were in paragraphs.--Tosiaki 04:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hold on. Some things to say:
  • "An ability to be popular with females" isn't an ability, it's more of friendship and personality, that's why I suggested Relationshipping (Also makes clearer linking to that page)
  • "An ability to be handsome" is also isn't an ability. It's more like fans just giving suggestions if Marisa was to be a guy.
  • I changed "a certain plumber" back to Mario and added where he came from. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 04:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ability, however, has a very wide meaning in Touhou - abilities, after all, do not necessarily mean an ability to do anything. That's why I would suggest throwing around the word "ability" with more liberty.--Tosiaki 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake. The one that is actually used liberally is not "an ability to" but rather, "ability to the extent to" - that is the one that is commonly used in ways that might not indicate an ability at all, although I guess that the phrase is still not quite well-known on the English-side, so perhaps to change it to something else would be a good idea.--Tosiaki 04:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Bulleted points are more of a one sentence declarative while paragraphs are the massive things that delve into information.

Most of the time, Fanon is more of to state the piece of fandom and then a small summary of what it is. So I guess I am on the paragraph side unless someone with great tact and care can use bulleted points, but for now paragraphs would be the norm ♥★♦ 01:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually think we should leave it to the admins to decide. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Have you seen the User-Boxes that Kyo and the others made? I think you would benefit in using em. Check out my page (or a participating member) If you need help or have questions, just ask. ♥★♦ 03:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I could try looking into them somewhat more - although I do hesitate on remarking about how proficient I am in Japanese, especially since, when I kept making comments on somebody's "Let's Play" videos (実況プレイ動画) on Nicovideo, other commenters said that there is a person with "strange Japanese."--Tosiaki 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What's up doc?[edit]

Hey Tosiaki, just wondering if there's gonna be some doc pages to the templates because I'm lost on two of them... thanks Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand templates myself, although I guess I could copy the documentation pages from Wikipedia, since they were all copied from there.--Tosiaki 04:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just something minor. With the images you uploaded on pool I think they can be turnd into having a more Touhou-like feeling (since this is the Touhou wiki lol). What I wanted to suggest is use some kind of yin yang and put the "i" or the "!" or any other symbol on top of it. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 04:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course, such a change would probably be positive. I just uploaded the images since I was copying the templates from Wikipedia.--Tosiaki 05:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Right! I'll get to work on it! Also, I removed delete and speedy on Cmbox and but the delete image to deletion since we've already got then. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion, (since I didn't know where else to put this) could we have a picture of Rumia covering words in the Hidden Template Category?

♥★♦ 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, although I wouldn't know how to do that (at least presently), but there is no reason why they can't be edited to be improved.--Tosiaki 01:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While we ponder that, I'd like to add Nue as an alternate since she can make UFOS. ♥★♦ 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Ability to the extent"[edit]

I noticed this change being made on a lot of pages recently, so I thought I'd stop in. I'm not sure if you're a native english speaker, but while I can appreciate where you're doing with the 'abilities', that phrase is extremely awkward and unwieldly; it's very nearly "word soup" in english. I do think that actual, official 'powers' such as Reimu's 'flying in the sky', Remilia's 'fate', Yuugi's 'supernatural phenomena' and so on, need a distinction from other abilities the characters have.

But 'ability to the extent of flying in the sky' is close to nonsense - if it's an idiom in another language, please remember that translating straight across isn't always the best way to go when you're trying to be informative. I would suggest something more like "Power over ____" or "Power of ____", or at least separating it into "Signature Ability" and "Other Abilities". The way it is now will just confuse english speakers, which is counter to the purpose of a wiki. Tunoddenrub 05:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that it is meant to be somewhat strange-sounding, the same way it sounds strange in Japanese. That is to say, if it sounds natural in English, it is not a good translation. The explanations of the characters' abilities in each page, I think, is enough to explain exactly what the ability is. What needs to be kept in mind is that the abilities should be thought of more as ability names than a description of the ability itself.--Tosiaki 06:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is also quite reasonable to interpret the meaning of the abilities to literally mean, "ability to the extent." As for Chen's case, "ability to the extent of surprising people," rather than thinking of it as a special ability to surprise people, it is more like saying her abilities merely go to that extent. The same is quite reasonably be true for any other ability.--Tosiaki 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
In other words, rather than saying that these abilities specify what "type" of ability they have, it is more reasonable to think of them as specifying their "power level."
However, it may be true that "ability to the extent of" is still not the best wording. Perhaps something else would be better, something like "power to the level of ~" or something like that.--Tosiaki 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. I see nothing wrong with a word choice that sounds exotic or foreign; but there's a difference between 'exotic' and simply 'incorrect'. "Ability to the extent of" simply falls into the latter; it's nearly nonsensical, and while I can see where it would work in japanese, in english it simply... doesn't. "Power to the level of ____" doesn't work any better; the canon 'signature abilities' aren't denoted by amount/extent so much as by domain.
I'd also like to point out that, above all, a wiki's goal is to inform, not confuse. Even if ZUN uses exotic, strange, or just plain confusing wording, that doesn't mean we have to; if a newcomer to the fandom were to see this, they'd just be perplexed and not learn anything. And the point of TouhouWiki is to teach people about Touhou, isn't it? Tunoddenrub 07:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
the canon 'signature abilities' aren't denoted by amount/extent so much as by domain. ← that is actually incorrect. The meaning of the phrase 程度の能力 very much specifies that that is the "degree," "amount," or "extent" of their abilities. That much is made clear but such things as this which states so very clearly.
Perhaps a less confusing phrase is needed, but an incorrect phrase is definitely not better.--Tosiaki 16:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I will admit again that I've only got a very rudimentary understanding of Japanese, none of which extends to the written word. But this really is the first time I've ever seen anyone champion this particular translation, and as a translation of 'teido no noryoku' it just seems very excessively literal to me, when in my experience the fandom's been translating and referring to them another way for years.
I would also like to point out that if a translation gets across the concept - if for example you were to translate 'giving a kanabo to an oni' to 'putting god mode on a cheap character' - then the fact that the translation is not direct and literal doesn't make it any less "correct". In fact, a translation like that is better, because it doesn't try to shove an idiom or turn of phrase from the native language into the faces of people who have never heard and won't understand it.
I strongly suspect I'm still not going to convince you; however, at the very least, please run this by some more translators in the fandom before you continue. This really is the first time I've ever seen anyone championing this translation in years of the fandom's existence. Tunoddenrub 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether such translations are correct strongly depends on how such phrases or parts of the phrases are used elsewhere in the same work/series, and the particular meaning of how it is used within the work, and whether or not such phrases are given special meaning that is outside how they are normally used. That is to say, it is more important to consider its usage and the meaning of its particular usage rather than purely how it is in the dictionary. In this case, it is agreed upon that it definitely means "degree," "amount," or "extent," and therefore such a thing needs to be included. When suggesting an improvement of such a phrase, it is important to keep this in mind.--Tosiaki 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It must also be noted that this phrases is not an idiom. Its meaning is as it literally states.--Tosiaki 18:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You say it's "agreed upon". By who? Why have I never seen it translated this way before? Tunoddenrub 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
By all people who can understand Japanese and understand this phrase. You should go to the page I referred you to here, and read the discussions that they have about this phrase (at the bottom of the page). It is not that it was never translated this "way" before - rather, it was never even translated in the first place, because it was deemed too "hard," or something like that.--Tosiaki 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"By everyone" isn't a valid response, I'm sorry. You might as well say "by Santa Claus" or "by this guy I totally know, you've never met him, he's a cool dude". Do you have an actual link to people discussing this topic, in english, and either already having or coming to a consensus? Linking pages of discussion entirely in japanese is completely useless, as the issue here is how best to bring the phrase from japanese into english. And, again, my Japanese reading comprehension is utterly terrible.
I ask again: Have you vetted this change with anyone in the wiki admin or at the very least the fandom? This is a major change of convention, so I sincerely hope you haven't simply decided to make it yourself and can point me to where it's been discussed.Tunoddenrub 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Dunno if this'll help you dude, but here's the link. There has been a considerable amount of discussion going on this wiki, and Tosi has made a separate talk page to see if we can get any better alternative phrases. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I didn't support this phrase, but I respect what community agrees. For further discussion, perhaps Tunoddenrub should visit here - KyoriAsh 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing still seems a bit unwieldly to me, and I do think some concessions should be made to the english language, but having read the discussion links that DeltaSierra4 provided, I can at least be satisfied that thought and discussion is going into this, and that there's good reason behind it. Tosiaki, I apologize for being such a pain in the backside. If I can think of a phrasing that both satisfies me and captures the feel of the original Japanese, I'll chime in over on the other discussion page. Tunoddenrub 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, may I chime in? What if we say "Ability to an extent" or "Ability to a degree"? Code Slasher 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems like, despite Tunoddenrub saying that it sounds unnatural, that when I search for this phrase (in quotation marks) on Google, I get several tens of millions of results as the number of results, most of which are not related to Touhou, so it seems like actually does work well enough. "Ability to an extent," on the other hand, gets only half a million results on Google.--Tosiaki 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds unnatural. Searching "ability to the extent" yields quite a few results that are actually "ability. To the extent" or use some other form of separation.
In addition, this is all about grammar. "Ability to the extent" is used like this:
  1. "It did not show her depth of character, her skills and ability to the extent which she deserves."
  2. "European Commission can influence this ability to the extent that it can improve its expertise by a higher number of staff."
  3. "... could find his way around by making 'clicking sounds' Ben refined the ability to the extent that he was able to play basketball and roller skate ..." (It's arguable that this is an incorrect usage, though.)
Now, let's examine "Ability to an extent":
  1. "It has been demonstrated that when certain portions of the brain are damaged related to a particular biological function, another region has the ability to an extent to take over the function, with the physical brain being altered to an extent."
  2. "... caused inactivation of transforming ability to an extent that depended on the genetic marker and the enzyme."
  3. "He increased my coaching ability to an extent I wouldn't have otherwise achieved."
  4. "... driving is a huge no-no – never mind that you think that you have developed that ability to an extent where you are able to make calls while ..."
However, "Don't use this ability to an extent as to control someone unless in an emergency" is an incorrect usage. Can you see why?
I suppose that it is worthy to say that "ability to an extent" is used in many cases to end sentences. You should make the call. Code Slasher 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the original text in the character specifications, it is more like "she has ability to the extent of..." (many current translations are like "she has the ability to the extent of..." but this "the" should be gotten rid of eventually), which actually fits very well with your second group of examples. Due to its presence on all character pages with such an ability, it seems to be more troublesome to change it, so it seems like it would be best to leave it as is unless we know for sure that something is better.--Tosiaki 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Substantially Influential Edits[edit]

Your edits to "Eastern Mystic" (and "Eastern Memory") have me wondering: if "Mystic" is a person, should we perhaps say "Eastern Mystic's", as in "Eastern Mystic's Dream ~ Ancient Temple"? If "Mystic" is a quality, though, should we say "Eastern Mystical Dream ~ Ancient Temple"?

Also, I don't why I was such an idiot and didn't notice the Japanese title for Reimu's Instant Kill Theme, but it has me wondering: is this cannon? If it is, then you or I can remove my disclaimer about the song's title not being cannon. Code Slasher 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the idea that it may refer to Youmu Konpaku? I actually think that it is more likely that "Mystic" was a terrible word to choose to begin with. According to this dictionary, it is not really anything related to "mysticism" or anything like that. Here are the two definitions presented on its entry:
  1. 色気があってなまめかしい - having a sensual/captivating/bewitching/seductive sensuality/glamor. This definition refers more to "romance/voluptuousness/etc."
  2. あやしく不気味だ - strangely weird/ominous/eerie/uncanny/ghastly. This refers more to usages like youi (妖異, mysterious occurance), youkai, youki (妖気, ghostly, unearthly, weird), youjutsu (妖術, sorcery), yousei (妖精, fairies), youma (妖魔, ghost/apparition). In general, refer to the wikipedia engry on obake since it seems quite similar in terms of meaning.
Obviously, it is definition #2 that is more relevant here. However, I do not quite know what would be the best word to pick to describe this.
As for the "fin-de-siecle version" thing, it must have come from somewhere, so I shall have to do some searching for that for if it is official or not.--Tosiaki 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
"Eastern Mystic Dream ~ Ancient Temple" was just an example; you also used it in "Eastern Mystic Love Consultation". If you think about that example, you're almost more inclined to pick definition #1. It looks like we're dealing with an adjective, though, regardless of which definition you choose. "Eastern Ominous Dream ..." and "Eastern Ominous Love ..." have the most sensible ring to me (or maybe even "Ominous Eastern ..."), otherwise we should probably choose "Eastern Mystical". Code Slasher 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, looking up the definition of "mystical" so as to see if it could really fit or not, it seems like there is a definition that could fit (designated as "rare"), but it seems more like an abuse of the use of the word "mystical" than anything else - regardless, I guess that despite searching dictionaries and thesauruses about this, I have still not come up with a better word, so I guess it can simply stay as "mystical" until a better word is found.
Concerning "fin-de-siecle" - it turns out that this is not official, and that it is only referred to as "???" - however, as for a fan-name, I think that it would be appropriate to call it, "Century's End Version," where "Century's End" is short for "Legend of the Century's End Messiah," which is where the theme is played, since, after all, it comes from the anime (rather than the manga, since it is not possible for it to have music).--Tosiaki 20:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
(Actually, to say "fan-name" is not quite accurate since it is more like a description rather an actual name to call it. In the Japanese fanbase, it is more well-known as テーレッテー妖恋談, or "Teerettee Eastern Mystical Love Consultation" due to it being popular to exclaim "teerettee" at the first three notes).--Tosiaki 20:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I just thought of something. We've established "東方怪綺談" to be read as "Fantastic Eastern Tales of Romance" for Mystic Square's title, though "Mystic" is found in two of Mystic Square's song titles without translating them. What do you think of that? Code Slasher 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess that in that context, it might just fit.--Tosiaki 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. "妖" translates to "mystic" and not "mystical". This actually supports the theory that ZUN may have actually wanted "mystic" because he has said "mystic" where "mystical" could also make sense many times before. Is it okay that I change your recent edits to "mystical", though? Code Slasher 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "mystic" can have the same meaning as "mystical" since both can be used as adjectives, so it doesn't seem like a big deal which one is used, so it should be okay either way.--Tosiaki 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Encarta Dictionary redirects "mystic" in the adjective sense to "mystical", and I've already begun, so I might as well finish. I won't touch stuff that was already English, though. Code Slasher 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
When you make such edits, though, it would be best if you changed all pages that talk about official material and mention the theme. This includes scenario pages that display the name of the theme, "list by song" pages, and the music CDs that have the theme in them (check my "contributions" for what I changed in changing "Mystic Oriental Dream" to "Eastern Mystic Dream").--Tosiaki 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I have my work cut out for me. I am busy, but I'll do my best. I may be undertaking a similar project concerning this as well. Code Slasher 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Wars[edit]

Hey, sorry to bother you with this issue again, but it has come to my awareness that your recent edits have resulted in some edit wars, including some previous instances, but I'm not here to debate about those. I just wanted to suggest to you to tone down your arguments a little bit: We know that you're bringing in some stuff that the western fanbase may not have been aware of, but the nature of the tone of your arguments are what I would find... somewhat self-righteous (I'm sorry for the blunt statement there, but I think most of those who were in edit wars with you would agree).
You might want to take a step back when you see a lot of opposition to your edits. I'm not saying you have never ever taken a step back and reached a compromise, but these days I think I see you more often stick to your own argument and not take any compromises (like the Patchy talk page duel you had with Kief - he had his own reasons to believe that those quotes could be paraphrased rather than placed side by side, but if you just state that "he is wrong", then do you think Kief would like that?) You may say that you have the rights to state that other people's thoughts are wrong and you should correct them, but in doing so I'd like to ask you to first take a step back and think how the other person feels when you make the statement: For instance, rather than just telling someone off that he/she "is flat-out wrong", you can say something like "I see your point, but here's my argument".
Also, keep in mind that you may not be the only person who's correct. Rather than insisting on going with your edit, you can think of a compromise that is acceptable to most editors. That said, I also want to ask you to think about it before reverting any edits that someone has made on your edit. Although you may find someone's edit hard to accept, if there's just so much opposition to your edit, why not come up with a compromise first before you try to stick to your own arguments?
Well, the point I wanted to bring up is that since this is a wiki, anyone can edit it, and therefore there's bound to be conflicts with regarding information and what not. In such cases, discussions are vital to solving these conflicts, and if you aren't equipped with the right mindset for discussions where sharp differences in opinions and thoughts may occur, these edit wars will likely end as stalemates where nobody gains any benefit, or worse, there are bound to be some editors that are unhappy with your edits.
Thanks for reading, and hope you understand our situation. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 21:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that I should change my tone a little, but I do not seek to argue points simply because I believe in it, with an unequivocal belief that others are wrong - merely state the points that I believe are reasonable and justify my arguments, not simply to disagree, and I do try extra hard to consider the others' viewpoints. In any case, I guess perhaps this is not something I have been clear enough in my comments (for example, stating things as declarations rather than beginning with "I think," etc.), and this is probably something I should be more careful of in the future, and I guess I should, from now on, stick by some self-created rules of my own, like "no reverting a major edit without first discussion."--Tosiaki 22:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to back up DeltaSierra here, and say that I'm feeling a bit frustrated by the attitude you have taken to a single, simple edit that I have made, Tosiaki; especially since two or three other people resisted your repeated reversions of my edit even before it was brought to my attention. I would really like to talk this one out, but it might be more appropriate to discuss it on the relevant page, so please see:
Furthermore, since this is a conflict between you and I, I would like to invite other users to compare the relevant edits, so that we have some impartial opinions. - Patchwork 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I have the belief that the others reverted it more to remove the second paragraph rather than to restore your version of the first, which is why I do not believe that they truly had much involvment in that. In any case, it is true that it is important to talk this out before doing more reversions in that regard.--Tosiaki 22:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate your understanding Tosi. There's a good deal of editors out there who believe you have a point, and they appreciate the edits that you often make, but it's a matter of how it's discussed. In the meantime, just in case, I'd like others to follow suit in any of the discussions: Make sure to think about the other person's feelings before making a criticism on his/her ideas. I look forward to your future edits :) --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Remember the offer I made yesterday?

Well, I did you one better, check out this talk!

This is a project you and I can work on together (yayz!)

Hope you are up for it!

♥★♦ 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to DeltaSierra4[edit]

Proposed idea[edit]

Interpretations, speculations, etc. are by-definition things that are fanon. All interpretations are "based on general fandom," since they are interpretations "by fans," not anyone else. Are you saying that interpretations should not belong anywhere on the page except for in the fanon section, then? If we want to have all of the character pages strictly based on canon, with no interpretations, speculations, etc. whatsoever, then I am not opposed to that. All I am saying is that if we are going to include such things on the pages, then it doesn't make sense to judge a statement purely based on whether it includes the word "derivative works" or not.--としあき 10:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible solution I think that perhaps one thing that might be good is to start with introductory sections that explains the canon, with no interpretation/speculation/fanon whatsoever, basically with the "no original research rule" in place. The rest of the page (possibly hidden, with a toggleview tag) could then be interpretation and analysis. I think that this might have been a suggestion that others have been posing earlier. This should satisfy those who would want the page to start with "pure canon." However, it would be disingenuous to separate "interpretation and analysis" from "fanon" since "interpretation and analysis" is fanon.
In other words if we want to separate "canon" from "fanon," we should do it uniformly, not just based on whether it simply includes the phrase "derivative works" or not.--としあき 10:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In fact... the more I think about this, the more of a good idea it seems. Kapow said earlier on Talk:Touhou Wiki, "I guess you could also use the show/hide thing and keep everything on one page, but that seems harder to maintain," but keeping everything on one page actually makes things easier to maintain, since everything is one page, without a need to click through separate pages. In any case, if we want to have the canon sections be strictly about canon, without any fanon, then interpretations, speculations, synthesis, etc. should be treated as fanon since they are "by fans," not by anyone else. It would thus only make sense to start the page with a "canon only" version with the "no original research rule," and then followed by the "interpretation/analysis/fanon" portions, possibly hidden by the show/hide feature.
So, any comments on this idea?--としあき 10:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Then let's focus on improving the pages.
I don't like to be the pessimist, but you are essentially challenging guideline(s) that other editors here are in favour of. Other editors meaning myself, DS4, TiamatRoar, Tony64, and Kapow. To quote DS4, "You can try changing that way of writing articles, but it seems like a long shot given how much opposition there is to this." One extreme, NOR, was opposed by three other editors. We are also uncomfortable with inclusion of fanon in the in-canon section for various reasons (irrelevancy, looking weird or out of place, delineation b/w interpretation and fanon). Keeping fanon out of the in-canon section, despite how irrational this may seem to you, is the prevailing opinion. That leaves the current guideline, which most editors are comfortable with. - Kiefmaster99 13:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if you understood my previous proposed idea, but the idea that I proposed was not challenging guideline - rather, what I was just saying above is that things like speculation, interpretation, synthesis should be considered fanon (as they are by fans, not anybody else), and my idea was simply a way to follow the current guideline with that in mind. If we want to keep fanon out of the in-canon sections, then we should keep out fan-made things like speculation, interpretation, and synthesis, and move those to an appropriate "fanon" section, perhaps renamed to "fanon, speculations, and interpretation."--としあき 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
To make it short, in case it is still not understood, all I have been saying all this time (throughout the entire discussion) is that it doesn't make sense to distinguish between interpretation and fanon, and we shouldn't try to distinguish between them. My proposed idea was simply an idea to follow the current guideline, not change it, so it would be good if you could answer it.--としあき 13:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Response to your initial question about your suggestion: Why would we need to hide the fanon material (regardless of whether it is interpretations or not) when we're clearly separating it from canon? I'm just curious and would like to hear your opinion on that.
As for your view that interpretations are fanon, well, maybe this could be my own definition, but the standard that I have about fanon is that it consists of beliefs among fans about a certain character/game/in-game event/etc. that have a subjective nature. In the character pages we would try to write them as objectively as possible. This subjective vs. objective issue is primarily why we would want to discern between interpretations and fanon. Yeah you could say, according to your definition of fanon, "but it's still interpretation by fans", by which I think you mean us, but that would then collide with my definition about whether the material in question is an objective interpretation or a subjective expectation/idea/thought about in-game materials. As much as you would disagree with my definition I would disagree with your definition here, so I'll look out for others' feedback on this issue. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 17:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That was just a suggestion that Kapow made - I myself don't think there is a "need" to hide fanon material.
Interpretation can never be "objective" because they can also be interpreted differently, as long as it was never confirmed officially. It would be pointless to argue whether a given interpretation is "objective" or not - that would simply lead to endless pointless arguments. That is why I would say that unless it is absolutely certain in canon, with no alternatives, then it cannot be considered "objective." If it is certain, though, then it would no longer be mere interpretation.--としあき 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I am still going to disagree with the notion that our interpretations would be considered fanon (or at least, that they belong in Fanon). Allow me to delineate.
Permitted interpretations and synthesis, as defined here, is original research we engage in. What the fanon thinks is irrelevant. Prior popularity is not a factor.
"Fanon" are any views widely held by the fanon at large (i.e. popularity). Doesn't matter what fanbase, only that it is generally known to meet the notability criteria.
In short, Interpretations bypass the popularity criteria and instead must pass editor criteria. Conversely, Fanon must pass the popularity criteria but can bypass editor criteria.
The two definitions are separate; the two are not mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive.
The current model that we follow is what I typed up in User:Kiefmaster99/Comments. As a wiki, we have to make our own value judgements based on canon and provide synthesis. In other words, by typing up synthesis, we engage in original research. We err on the safe side in terms of content inclusion, so no, not all "fanon" is going to pass this test.
The second we include synthesis/inferences/whatever, if such was was coincidentally held by the rest of fanon, the fanon label is dropped. If the objective was to support an interpretation, adding "in fanon" weakens this and brings the question of "well why is this in the in-canon section?". If the objective was to inform that this view also happens to be held widely in fanon, then as everybody else noted, "it belongs elsewhere".
You also run into this major problem when new material becomes released. By default, no fanon is going to exist for new material, and we do have a threshold for inclusion of any Fanon stuff. No fanon can be added until it's been established (sans pre-game speculation). You can't shove de novo synthesis into Fanon because it doesn't meed the criteria for inclusion in the Fanon section - that the view must be established. You end up depriving the wiki of any informative capability during new releases. You wouldn't be able to comment on the inspiration for Toyosatomimi no Miko, or comment that the spell card backdrop for her is the Five-storied Pagoda of Hōryū-ji.
That being said, if I was an observer not from the English fanbase, and I wanted to comment on some of the inferences made in this wiki, then sure, you could call that fanon from that perspective (actually, that label is poor, since it's not representative of what the English fandom thinks, only what editors here at Touhou Wiki think). For the purposes of this wiki though, we need to indicate what inferences the wiki supports, and that is only done by inclusion into the in-canon section. - Kiefmaster99 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any definition of "permitted interpretations and synthesis" other than "speculation, inferences, analysis, or synthesis backed by editors" that you provided on your comments page. The very phrase "backed by editors" contradicts the statements "what the fanon thinks is irrelevant" and "prior popularity is not a factor." You are simply shrinking down the "applicable fanbase" to "editors here," but that still doesn't make it any different from fanon. "Editor criteria" is not any different from "popularity criteria" - the only difference is their sample population.
Thus, it is not a good idea to indicate that we "support any inferences distinguished from fanon," since doing so would imply that it is canon. We are not in the job of picking out inferences that "we favor." Picking out what "canon supports" is fine, but I do not think it is appropriate to inject our views and favor one fanon view over another simply because we "like it." If you are saying that only canon stuff should go in canon sections, then the "views of editors here" shouldn't belong in them, and shouldn't be influenced by the personal preferences of editors here.--としあき 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is not true that "no fanon is going to exist for new material" because some views do get established quickly. Thus, it would still be possible to "comment on the inspiration for Toyosatomimi no Miko," because even though the view is new, it is established, and therefore would meet the criteria for inclusion in the fanon section.--としあき 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right, I am shrinking down the applicable fanbase here. Recall WGH's comment:
"It's a tricky proposition, but as one of the leaders in where fans get their information, we likely are the most used source of knowledge besides ZUN himself. It's unlikely that nowhere else but here would we be able to confirm what belongs. It's a wicked catch-22, but the point is we need to act as our own guardians and decide for ourselves what's most notable and verifiable. We're the most reliable Touhou outlet of any kind that there is since it's not like there are many who report on Touhou anything and the ones that do are using the same information as us."
Under my definitions, it is not contradictory because I am outlining two completely different groups - editors, and fandom. Editors are a subset of fandom, in the same way that scientists are a subset of society.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before, inferences here are conservative. If surveying the English fanbase, if for example 40% are aware of or believe something, then it noteworthy to be included in Fanon. Conversely, if only 40% of Touhou Wiki editors support an inference, it's going to be shot down. Also, while I may support X in general, I may not agree to the same thing for this wiki.
I never said that only canon stuff should go in canon sections. If you thought I was, then you are making the same mistake when you pulled DS4's quote. Canon + minor inferences are okay. Going beyond that is stretching it.
In practice, almost every thing we publish in-canon becomes accepted, or is already accepted, by the English Touhou fandom. Anything objectionable is more likely to be shot down.
Just because it is in the canon sections does not mean it is directly cited. Any inferences are backed anyways (or can be) using canon facts.
Also, no, the new views being established doesn't fly and fails for two reasons. One, you deprived Touhou Wiki from taking the initiative of reporting first (and by extension, the entirety of the English fanbase). Two, see Talk:Kasen_Ibaraki. - Kiefmaster99 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, only editors decide what goes on this Wiki, but you seem to have provided no criteria of what editors should pick other than "editors here think so," which amounts to nothing more than "personal preferences" if no further criteria is given.
You did at least say that fanon does not belong in the canon sections, and "the personal preferences of editors here" is still nothing more than fanon.
Unlike scientists, we are not people with more "special qualifications" who are supposed to "know more" about Touhou than other people in general. Wikis are information resources that anyone can edit, and therefore it does not make sense to say that editors here are "qualified" to make value judgments on which kinds of speculations or interpretations are "better" than others.
Furthermore, when it comes to fanon views (i. e. speculations, interpretations, etc.), the Touhou Wiki shouldn't take the initiative of reporting anything first. The talk on Kasen Ibaraki was simply mis-informed (as the thing relating to the "big four" was already an established fanon view by the time the talk took place), and doesn't have anything to do with this.--としあき 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, recall WGH's argument. We need to take it into our own hands what should belong and what doesn't belong. Each wiki has its own history, culture, whatnot. This wiki is no different. Recall Momiji's statement. Are you suggesting that editors located on other fan wikis are any different? My stance has always been that editors are no different from any other fan wiki in terms of qualification, and any good editor from any other fan wiki will scrutinize the contents of others.
Consensus has always been useful in determining policy and whatnot on wikis (hence, "editors here think so"). I will not elaborate further than that. - Kiefmaster99 20:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think you quite understood my previous comment, so let me make it clearer. I said it earlier, it is obvious that everything is decided "by consensus of editors here." However, you have provided no criteria for what kinds of things editors should decide on, so without any further criteria, it amounts to nothing more than "include/disinclude it because I like/dislike it." If the canon sections are supposed to be about canon material, then making decisions on what should go there purely based on personal preferences like that is not the best way to decide that.--としあき 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
As for comparison to other fan wikis, when it comes to interpretations, the other fan wikis that I have seen report on interpretations according to what the popular interpretation is in the fanbase. If we are going to include interpretations, it does not make sense to say that "editors here" are experts who should have a special status in deciding what interpretations are best, since such an approach is arbitrary at best - it only makes more sense to report on what interpretations are popular in the fanbase. Such interpretations are, of course, fanon.--としあき 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Case-by-case basis for inferences. What else do you want me to say? Every situation is going to be different, and is subject to the same consensus-making process occurring right now.
We do have a section for that, and that is called Fanon. And it's already established earlier that we have an original research policy. - Kiefmaster99 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about barring fanon in the "anything not said by ZUN" sense. This is about barring fanon that doesn't have reasonable backing in the canon beyond what could be considered an extremely arbitrary and over-extensive assumption. The problem is you're looking at it as a prohibition. What it actually is is that simply saying popularity of an interpretation or portrayal is a non-factor. Whether something is popular or not will not bar it from the main sections. What bars something from the main sections is how much it can actually reasonably be connected to what's been shown or stated in canon, regardless of if it's popular or not. TiamatRoar 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that the simple question that should be considered is, "interpretation by whom? Who says that this interpretation is valid?" The answer currently being posed is, "interpretation by us, and it is valid because we say so." Such an approach seems arbitrary and doesn't seem to amount to anything more than the personal views of people here. If we are going to report on interpretation, it should be something with a more solid basis - that would be "interpretations that are popular in the fanbase." If it is something that can definitely be concluded from canon, then it is not an interpretation. I do not see how it makes sense to say that the "interpretations based on the personal views of a few editors here" are better at all than "interpretations that are popular in the fanbase."--としあき 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
As a reminder, we do translate official games and sometimes other works for the entirety of the English fandom. Translations by nature require interpretation and original research, so it's not like OR is an entirely new concept to editors here. And yes, sometimes poor translations fly, some which couldn't be helped, and have undergone multiple revisions. At one point the Japanese title was equated to the English subtitle, which had to be corrected. In others a preliminary translation led to a popular abbreviation that had to be revoked afterward. Spell card titles undergo corrections and revisions. "The face known as a man" had to be changed into "The face that knew men" after a comment was made offsite. We do have built-in checks to ensure that errors are minimized. - Kiefmaster99 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Translations are a different matter since it is necessary for understanding by English-speakers. Besides doing translations, though, if it is not necessary to do interpretations, then they should not be presented as canon. That is to say, for editors here to be an "elite group in performing interpretations" in relation to translations is only because there are no major "reliable/official sources" that provide them, not because it is the default way to go. Those are interpretations based on necessity, and interpretations other than translations are by no means "necessary."--としあき 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That will only become an issue if an interpretation here does override an interpretation from the fanbase. As I've stated before, however, most fanbase "interpretations" don't even fit the definition of the word "interpretation". A "portrayal" by itself is NOT an interpretation. Many fans write fanfics and doujinshi fully knowing their "portrayal" of a character depicted within is completely out of character compared to the canon (such as PAD jokes, China, and dere Alice). And many others... er, are a bit more delusional, but whatever. TiamatRoar 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree on that, as I would say that it would become an issue for every interpretation. Every interpretation should be challenged for what basis it has. If it turns out that it is based on canon, or can definitely be concluded from canon, then it would not be an interpretation.
We can decide based on whether it is based on canon or not, in which case it would be about "including canon material" rather than about including any interpretations. We can also decide based on whether the interpretation is popular or not - in which case, it should be considered fanon. But it does not make sense to decide simply because "we like it or dislike it."--としあき 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of what an interpretation is. And so far, so does every other editor here from what I can tell. It's important because it's important to discern the meaning of the context of interpretation from what it's meant to be in the guidelines. And clearly, your interpretation of the word interpretation is different from everyone else here. Looking it up in the dictionary, I do see that your idea of an interpretation matches the third definition of the word "To represent by means of art" or "a particular adaptation of a work or style". However, this is not the intended context and definition of the term interpretation as it relates to the guidelines and what everyone else here is talking about, which is more about the definition of interpretation as "explaining something" and "to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms" TiamatRoar 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that word choice is causing some confusion here, so let me define what I mean. When I say "interpretation," I mean "any conclusion that does not come from canon, and might possibly be concluded differently," including speculations, theories, and other kinds of stuff like that. If it is canon, then it should be kept as canon. If it is not canon (i. e. the "interpretations" that I have been talking about), then it does not make sense to keep or remove it from canon sections simply because we like it or dislike it.--としあき 21:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that if you'd include every possibility and speculation, then things could theretically reach 100 pages long and you wouldn't know where to stop. It's best to set the bar at something you could consider "one logic step" for an interpretation. Any more than that and the possibilities open up too much for it to be feasible to present them all. TiamatRoar 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Setting the bar at "one logic step" is essentially saying we should write about only canon in canon sections. I do not think that your idea here is a bad idea. As I said previously, anything that is beyond the "one logic step" (and is thus not canon) is essentially the personal views of people, and if we are going to include "personal views," it is better that it be the "popular opinion" rather than the personal views of the few editors of this wiki - and would thus essentially be fanon.--としあき 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up this issue[edit]

Oh, that wasn't what I meant when I said I want to clear up the issue with it: I'm not talking simply about the fanon in canon issue but the general tension that you seem to feel between you and me.

OK, I might be slow in response because I'm typing this up at work and I lack the free time I used to have, but it'd be worth it if we can take care of this issue without having to flare up too much (especially in my case) in certain instances. I'll spell out my issues I had.
So you think I've personal feelings against you? Well here's the thing: I used to, but now I'm keeping it away from the table. It was just about one thing: Your importing Nicopedia material without having told me so. I just felt quite betrayed when you imported nicovideo article materials into some theories sections related to Yuyuko, especially the death section, whilst saying that you had "official sources" about them. When you first said "official sources" I was glad to hear about that, because I was used to listening about these theories about her death, and I thought you meant PMiSS or ZUN's blog articles, but when you directed me to Nicopedia... well, it's my fault that I've been firmly believing in my expectations, but I felt quite disappointed at that you haven't been telling me and those in the talk page that they were from Nicopedia. But that's pretty much the only major personal feeling I had against you, and don't think that it's still affecting me because now that we're inclining towards including Nicopedia material, as long as it's an addition instead of replacement (yes I was talking about Yuyuko's article in the Nicopedia talk page, but you explained yourself so that's in the clear), those Nicopedia material you're trying to add is welcome.
As for opposition to your edits... Let's see. Your edits take one of the three forms: Translation/name revisions, importing Nicopedia materials, and other technical stuff (like the timeline). You're right, I often object to your edits in all three types of edits you make. Here's some of my stances in overall about your edits:

  1. Translation: You and I have the same goal that literal translations are bad and we want to convey the spirit of the original language as much as possible, but the diction that we employ are starkly different. I lived in a culture similar to yours so I understand what you want to do with the translations but I also spent my other half of my life in the western culture, so I felt that we would want to reach a better translation. Remember how everyone commented about the awkward English issue? For instance, "Fantasy Temperament"... I felt that "spirit" or "soul" (and you also thought about "spirit" if I remember correctly) would be less awkward? Well my idea was that the transition of word from "fantasy" to "temperament" was quite hard, given that the word "temperament" isn't a word used as often as "spirit" and thus it gave me the feeling that others would think that it was from the dictionary. Well that can be discussed in its own talk page - I've made suggestions there so you can check it out.
  2. Nicopedia material: Yeah, I've pretty much explained myself earlier in the Nicopedia talk page, but I was insecure about the volume of materials you were importing: The amount of new information made me uncomfortable that you might try to phase out the original western fanbase material with the Nicopedia material. Maybe I was wrong there (and I apologize if I was). Again, it would be a good cultural exchange to have some Nicopedia material in the articles, as this wiki is indeed serving an international fanbase.
  3. Technical stuff: The no OR issue, OK, it's my fault for not having calmed down enough before making a response, but when you said "state whether you oppose to this (in other words, my) quote", I felt you were trying to make me sound like I was supporting your argument. I could've just plainly said "In fact I oppose that" and explained myself, but, again, those accusations I myself have been receiving complicated the problem and it turned out into a weird brawl. That I think was another miscommunication issue.

Speaking of which, last but not least,

  1. Miscommunication: Biggest problem I think that was going on between you and us: You were intending to do something good, but it may not have come out in the proper wording. This happens to all of us, even to me, as you may have witnessed yourself. Unfortunately I don't think there's much that can be helped about this, just as Tiamat said earlier: We just have to be aware of that at all times when editing the talk page.

There were other things I wanted to add to the list of misconceptions and miscommunications you and I may have had, but I'm really running out of time here, sorry. Yeah let this discussion keep going on: We're not debating about anything related to editing guidelines or what not; we're just trying to relieve any tensions that might be going on. I'm happy to listen to your response. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if I feel any tension - just a general sense of hostility and lack of feeling any reward for anything, which is why I haven't done anything substantial in the past few days. I am effectively taking a break from everything except participating occasionally in the discussion. I do think that I have spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME HERE, which is why I would want to focus on other things.
On an unrelated note, please do note that if my diction is strange, it is not because I am non-native in English. I do live in the United States, and have hardly ever been in any other country. Perhaps surprisingly, I have never visited Japan.
There was one time when I did suggest to phase out all the stuff from "fanon" unrelated to derivative works, but have since backed off from that idea. The deletions of all the lead sections from the character pages were due to the fact that all of it was duplicated elsewhere after adding in all the Nicovideo Encyclopedia stuff.
I said it was "officially backed" because the Nicovideo Encyclopedia pretty much mostly talks about the official stuff, and is an analysis of it. Admittedly, the stuff about Yuyuko's suicide was actually more of an examination of historical facts, just like the "Her Father" and "The Ink-Black Cherry Blossom" sections.
I think that one major reason for the miscommunication is that I have, until now, refused to make any comments of any personal nature, since I have come here to edit an information resource, not to social network with others. Perhaps that was a mistake of mine, since ignoring personal comments would simply result in... misunderstandings.--としあき 19:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Got out of my work finally... Man I never knew that. I got the feeling from your edits that you may be a native of Japan and were here to add information related to Japanese culture, which I'm deeply interested in. At first, to that I said "Sweet! More comrades!" But then things started falling apart and words were exchanged and you know the rest... Well, as for poor diction I guess that's a usual problem editors have to face in an international wiki. I won't be commenting too much about your English or diction too much from now, but I'll occasionally make grammar edits if necessary. You wouldn't mind that, do you?
Well, for the "officially backed", you could've simply called it "substantial backing" instead, because here "officially backed" would likely be interpreted as "stated as canon by ZUN himself". That's one more thing out of the way.
Also, general feeling of hostility? I don't understand it myself - the only theory I have is that these little bits of misunderstanding just compound on one another and get built up to such degree of hostility, if you do feel any. Just like that rolling ball of snow man, it keeps going on and on until it gets too large to stop. In my case it started out with that trivial thing of Yuyuko's death section, and then these edit wars ensued, words were exchanged, and... yeah. It makes me feel like this wiki that was all for fun and games has turned into the likes of politics and battle of ideology. I'm also tired of any more arguing in these talk pages, and yet I leave a comment on a discussion, just to point out some stuff that were in my mind, and it gives you such feeling... I just wanted to get out of this tunnel man, just wanted to let you know.
PS. Yes I'm also spending too much time on this wiki I think... Got to move on with ko wiki or some real-life issues I've to tackle. I've been getting hit with a cascade of bad news here myself. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind grammatical edits. Regarding my nationality, it seems strange to me that you wouldn't know that I am not Japanese, but I guess that the only time I made that clear with with my remark above regarding my lack of confidence in writing Japanese... well, that, and my ancient comment on Talk:Sakuya Izayoi that effectively stated that I didn't know how to use the "add entry" feature on the IME.--としあき 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Woah this is quite mindblowing... I've so far thought you were Japanese, given the places you seem to visit, the information that you shared here, and even your username... As for that comment about your Japanese I thought you were just being modest about yourself. Well that was quite unexpected - hope you get a good laugh out of my misconception about your nationality lol. Just so you know, your perceived nationality was not the reason I was opposing your edits (rather I'd be more friendly to Japanese editors as well). --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
DS4, you are not the only that makes that mistake. I haven't been here long, but from the long debates I've read, and the edits I've seen, Tosiaki gives the impression of either (a) native, or (b) at least lives in Japan, due to being able to do lots of translation as well as heavily emphasizing the "Japanese side" in the arguments. Jsonchiu 03:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicopedia on the pages[edit]

Hi Tosiaki! I see that you decided to start adding the Nicopedia articles to the Character pages. I would like for you to ask the others if you should continue to do so as it has not been discussed by the other members yet. Thanks. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it should be noted that I did not remove it due to the fact that I felt that there was any inaccuracy in them. I removed them because I felt a concern about attribution - that is to say, it did not seem quite correct to have them on the page without acknowledging where it all came from. It effectively does not present much change to how the pages were before, other than that the source is now acknowledged. In any case, if comment from others is to be sought, then there is no problem for comments on this.--としあき 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangential post. Sorry about my comment in the nicovideo encyclopedia talk. I only really knew what I had seen on the Yuuka page (investigating that is what led me to the nico talk page), and I was taking what other people were saying at face value (rather than bothering to investigate the happenings multiple pages). Though I was trying to be tactful and speak in abstract, I think I fell well short of being helpful and I probably should have just kept my mouth shut. And while I still don't fully know what's going on (and will most likely stay well enough away from this issue from now on), it's obvious that you're sharp, well-intentioned, and have invested a good deal of time in this, so it pains me that I was being an ignorant naysayer. So I apologize, and I hope that whatever comes of this that the fruits of your work are put to good use. K.B. 00:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean with acknowledging Nicopedia literally on the pages. However, were a wiki for Touhou, not other wiki's lol. The way I see the Nico pages is that there are, really, factual info on them that can easily go onto the pages w/o the need to acknowledge Nico (you even ref some of them, but still move them).

I do have a suggestion on how we can sort out the Nico pages. What we can do is use highlight colours.

  •   : Info highlighted in this is definite, 100%, factual info and can go onto the pages. This will also be used when the info is already on the pages.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is questionable, but can still go onto the pages.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is fanon or is a Nico joke and may be able to go under the fanon section.
  •   : Info highlighted in this is questionable, but cannot go onto the pages and may need to be discussed if necessary.
  •   : 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.

Well, what do you think mate? ^^ Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 01:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if they contain a lot of canon info, I am thinking that they can go under the "fanon" section with no problem, since it is also a collection of what the fanbase thinks of as important within canon. The rest of the page can be done independently from the Nicovideo Encyclopedia.--としあき 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


OK, I'm not sure how to put this so that you can understand my situation as well as others' of this wiki without having to possibly offend you or fire you up on something, but before I start, I'd like to point out that there's nothing personal going on between you and me because, as I've stated earlier, I'm putting aside whatever mistrust I had in you from now on, and I've made a promise to keep it civil when discussing issues with you. I'm saying this because I've noticed a tendency in your discussions that you accuse someone of personally hating on you when they repeatedly reject your opinions, and I'm concerned that you might reject my post as a personal attack on you after you read what I'll be stating here flatly. I thought you would understand our situation if I explained it to you without trying to be too straightfoward in fear that I might offend you, but I think it's time that I had to spell things out more directly so that you can get a grasp of what position we are in. That said, you might not like what I'll be telling you, and you can ignore this post if you want, but do so if you want to risk even more estranged relationships with other editors and Touhou wiki visitors.

First off, I wanted to comment on your said tendency to accuse other people of personally hating on you. While I don't want to condone personal attacks on you from now on, I also have to say that there's a reason behind said hostility against you. Have you ever thought that you were overly adamant in stating your opinions? You said that you weren't unbendable in these discussions but do you think you were willing enough to accept other people's ideas and opinions? I may be wrong here, but I and several others in this wiki as well as the recent editors who joined in the discussion got the impression that you were way too dogmatic in stating your opinions. Rather than saying that you'll keep their suggestions in mind, your responses were something like "it's just inaccurate so I cannot accept it". Like I said before, if you flat-out reject someone's idea as "wrong", they wouldn't like it. Hence, you've made the rod for your own back by being the cause for the "hostility" from those kind of responses. You certainly weren't gaining this amount of hostility because you were editing too much: Rather, we appreciate your willingness to contribute and help with the editing of the articles, but in the midst of the ensuing discussions, you left an impression on others that you were lacking in flexibility by simply rejecting some people's proposals. If you say that wouldn't have been the case, you still can't deny that you were urging others to accept your own proposal most of the time. That would still make people believe that you were unbendable.

The discussion pages are meant to be places where people hold discussions to settle down differences, not places where you repeatedly state your own opinions and insist on accepting your own proposals. Rather, the way I believe that these talk pages should work is that they be used as places where two parties with sharply contrasting opinions start accepting each other's differing opinions and work towards a final resolution where both parties can fairly agree to.

But here's the thing: In the past I believe I and some other editors have been so willing to accept a compromise with your edits that you must've started thinking that you can edit everything the way you want. I'll tell you here that it won't happen all the time: It's a wiki after all, and you're bound to meet oppositions everywhere so you can't think that your proposals must be accepted no matter what, even if that proposal is meant to be constructive and out of good will: If people don't like them, expect your proposals to be shot down. Also, don't think that this means you should stop suggesting whatever good ideas you may have - just try to think of a way that you can accept differing opinions as much as you can into your proposal.

You might think of it as unfair that I'm only singling you out from everyone else that joined in the discussion, but I'm doing this because you participated in all of the recent discussions, and I felt there was a reason behind everyone objecting to your ideas. Discussing issues and all is good, but, as others have already commented, people find it pretty draining to discuss these issues with you, which has pretty much resulted in a lot of people backing out of discussing issues with you. They think that you will remain so adamant about sticking to your opinions, they got tired of discussing anything with you, and I'm afraid you might take their backing out as their accepting your idea. In fact, they're not: Rather, they're frustrated with discussing these issues because any honest suggestion that they wanted to make, any proposals that they suggested out of good will, you rejected them on the basis that they were just wrong.

I hope I made myself clear here. Since I seem to have lesser and lesser time to spend at this wiki these days, I don't think I'll be posting much often in any discussions you participate in. That said, if you continue to remain so dogmatic about your opinions and keep rejecting all others' ideas, I can't promise what kind of pandemonium this wiki will descend into. And remember, I won't always be there to try thinking of ways to mediate your ideas with other people's - I always want to help you and others out in these discussions and try to resolve these differences, but there's a limit to which I can help you out.

Thanks for reading, and hope you can understand our situation. --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the reason why everyone objects is because I have been participating more in the discussions than anyone else. I notice that a lot of comments recently are "you are wrong and you must back off" and I just find it unfair that I am the only one criticized just because I commented more.--としあき 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK... Personally Tosi, I don't mind you cos you do provide good info to the wiki. In fact suprisingly, I like you~

However, from an above statement that I discovered recently: "All I am seeing is people who just want to impose rules without truly caring about practical matters, probably due to lacking other things to do, just so they can feel better about themselves." - Tosiaki

Now... I see you went OTT there, but I do think I went a bit overboard with the character guidelines myself tbh. btw, I ask Darkslime for suggestions due to his edit on Mokou, not the above. Just like you, I try to keep the wiki in good shape, but sometimes anyone can lose some and win some. I don't edit rules for the sake of it, but to try to improve how things are setted out (although I know the char guidline are a bit messy). No persoanl attacks or anything; just saying ^^' Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 01:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you would mind if I could send you e-mails or anything like that... of course, it is not exactly possible right now since you don't exactly have any e-mail that you have made public or anything.--としあき 01:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh :0, hmm... well that's an unexpected turn out lol. Well of course! You should have my email if that's what you wanted. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Merged pages[edit]

Hi. I'd like to let you know that your page Conceptuals/Embodiment of Scarlet Devil was merged into Conceptuals. I'm not sure if your created that page out of confusion with the contemplations pages though.--Sbluen (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (EDT)