Difference between revisions of "User talk:Matthew Allen Thorn"
(progress on manga article)
(→Manga article progress, plans)
|Line 68:||Line 68:|
[[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 14:17, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
[[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 14:17, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Revision as of 23:02, 1 October 2008
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Larry Sanger 14:31, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
Hi, Matt! Good to see you here. Tim's here as well. William L. Benzon 19:02, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
- Looks like we got here. Timothy Perper 19:15, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
- Well, after reading your bios I feel like a dork for writing my bio in the third person and sounding like I've got a stick up my ass. I'll have to edit it before anyone else sees it. Matthew Allen Thorn 20:38, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
- Looks like we're being "invaded" by comics guys. Welcome, all! If anybody gives you grief about starting manga articles, let me know! --Larry Sanger 21:00, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
TP Manga Sandboxes
Hi, Matt. I've created a set of Sandboxes for revising the manga articles and other stuff. They're listed at User:Timothy Perper/SDBXIndex with links and brief descriptions. The mechanics are just like they were at Wiki. Don't forget that you can email me with comments and suggestions as well as leave them on the sandbox pages. I suspect we're going to miss Malkinann... Timothy Perper 10:50, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
- Are you getting messages here? If so, I've finished downloading and preliminary editing of the History of Manga article from Wikipedia. It will have to be sourced to Wikipedia but we'll take care of that later. I am now working on a complete revision of the references (a big job that is!), eliminating as much garbage as I can, and adding new material.
- It now needs
- A section on manga before WW2. You're the expert and I can't do it without your substantive input.
- A revision, which I've begun, to make it a more general manga article.
- Concerning "approving" the article at some point, I frankly do not want it approved. Such articles on CZ are very difficult to revise, and that is not good. That means, I suggest, that you can work on the article without worrying about it.
- The article is at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga.
- Timothy Perper 13:59, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
- Hi, Tim. Yes, I'm getting my messages, and am more-or-less following the activity in your sandboxes. I've just been distracted by real-life, and frankly a bit daunted by the task ahead. The history section in particular jumps all over the place, often giving undue weight to obscure or only peripherally significant material while ignoring more important material that occupies a pretty central place in the Japanese-language discourse on manga history. But I like your idea of not even trying for approval. I hadn't considered that possibility. That liberates me to contribute without worrying about the author/editor conflict. I'll dive in soon, but right now I have other things to attend to. Matthew Allen Thorn 20:36, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
- Thanks. The history section needs an overview of Japanese language discourse on manga, but I don't think it's wise to mix that in with discussions of manga that have appeared in translation in the US. At the moment, the manga I discuss are the same as in the original Wikipedia "History of manga" article and were selected because they illustrated certain trends or directions in the evolution of manga. We can include other manga and/or delete some that are mentioned, but let me format the article first.
- The most important thing you could do, IMO, is to sketch in a history of manga before WW2 section. Only you have the sources and the expertise for doing that.
- If you would, when you start in, put new sections in their own subsection of the page and not into the text directly. Then we have two separate documents we can compare and discuss instead of one huge mess.
- For example, I did not include the Japanese publishers of any of the manga I describe. That we can do later. Right now, I'm still eliminating garbage that the Wiki kobolds put in and updating and completing the references -- no small job.
- Nor am I particularly worried about "undue weight." That's a Wiki-ism that was used over there by one editor to bang the head of other editors during one of their interminable edit wars. I think we can ignore it, and develop material as we think it deserves -- and some of it deserves more weight than other material.
- So far as jumping all over the place is concerned. I think that depends on where we are in the article, and what we want it to do. When I wrote the original (shorter) Wikipedia piece, I felt that any statement about history had to be illustrated with some concrete examples of manga. The current article is no longer a "history" -- despite the title on the page, which doesn't matter much -- but a review or overview. For example, I'd assume that your history of manga before WW2 will deal extensively with shōjo manga -- but that's not "undue weight," it's one of your areas of expertise! We can put other stuff in later. Let's get the stuff we can do in first.
- I'm going to contact John Stephenson and ask him if we can make the subsections he included in the original manga article into their own articles (stubs, of course). We can, eventually, create separate pages for any manga we want, but -- and here comes another big "We ain't doing it Wikipedia-style" -- those ought to be analytical essays about the manga instead of the fancrufty, fanboy, and otaku garbage of Wikipedia articles on individual manga. Thus, I do not think we should include a list of characters -- such lists are available not only on Wiki but also on Anime News Network. Instead, the author of each entry should commit to writing an analysis of the history and discourse about the manga in question. For example, the "Astro Boy" entry should discuss its popularity (among other things) and try to explain why it became so popular. In other words, I'm trying to make these as different from Wikipedia as I can.
- I'm also not going to worry, yet, about length. It may be that we can break out some subarticles, but not yet.
- Anyway, I'm going to go back to editing out glitches.
- Timothy Perper 06:09, 30 September 2008 (CDT)
Manga article progress, plans
I wanted to update you on the changes I've been making on the manga article -- the one at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga.
(1) I've repaired many, not all, but many of the referencing issues. They were left over from Wikipedia when I gave up on fighting the kobolds. I have more work to do (including adding refs to your work). I've also added some new sections, with notes on what I want to add.
These are not minor changes, but complete rewriting, for example of the Introduction, the section you read on viewpoints about manga history, and the substantive material about shojo and shonen manga. I've already made changes in the last two and will continue to work on them. After that, my next plan is to rewrite the introduction and then that accursed section on viewpoints about manga history (another carryover from Wikipedia, BTW, and one that has annoyed me for a while).
(2) I think we can use the result, when it's done, as the new manga article, to replace Stephenson's entry. I've talked to him about that, and he's OK with it -- more than OK, in fact, because he made some very useful changes in his original article, like making stubs for the four manga he mentions. He also said it was OK to incorporate the material he had into the new introduction.
(3) I want to make sure that the idea is also OK with you. Frankly, I don't think it's worth your time, talents, and knowledge to try to do the entire manga article by yourself. You're an expert on the Japanese side of the article, and I think that's where your work is most valuable. I don't want to see you getting bogged down in trying to figure out which manga are the most popular in the US or why, or what Americans may want to know (and not know) about Japan. It's just not worth your time -- which, I think, is better spent with your greatest strengths, like your intimate and expert knowledge of Japanese language ( = untranslated) manga, its artists, and its history. Basically, I'm trying to save you time and hassle, and give ourselves the part that Martha and I have been working on for a decade or so, not only as reviewers for Mechademia and Library Journal, but also from our familiarity with the industry (you know, I think, that we are doing the adaptation of one of Tokyopop's manga?) and from knowing a good many US and Canadian manga scholars.
So whereas I respect your desire to take on the whole article, I think it'd be better to work with and improve an already nearly complete article than to re-invent the wheel and start from scratch. It's certainly easier and, at my age, I tend to prefer the easier pathway these days.
Let me know what you think.
Timothy Perper 14:17, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
- Tim, sounds good to me. I'll try to help out where I can. Right now I'm focusing on off-line matters, though (e.g., health), so I may not be very helpful in the immediate future. In the meantime, you might find a couple of recent posts to my blog (here and here) on Japanese manga-reading statistics useful. Matthew Allen Thorn 18:02, 1 October 2008 (CDT)