Talk:Katsudō Shashin

Is the date really unfounded?

The article dismisses the opinion of a leading authority in pre-war anime by citing an article who offered no proof that the scholar was wrong. The closest thing it offered for an explanation was a fantasy about Nicole Kidman, so my question is: does somebody else in the academic world dismisses Matsumoto's opinion or is the only voice of discord that link? Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.190.81 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Katsudō Shashin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks fascinating, I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I reviewed this the night of the 17th, didn't post, and have been searching for the review on and off ever since.

Passing lead, See also, Notes, References, Notes cited. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Passing all! The early review questioned the Chinese lettering, asking how the scholars knew it was Japanese, if the writing was in Chinese, but I just read the intro to kanji. Since most readers won't over analyze the kanji writing, or they'll know what kanji is, it's not an issue. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EngVar

• Deb, Lugnuts, and Curly Turkey, could y'all discuss the issue here rather than continue to edit war? I don't want to have to protect the page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the works cited, the first one (for example) says "Retrieved 2014-02-12". CT cites MOS:DATEVAR, but directly below that is MOS:BADDATE which lists that format as "Unacceptable" - "Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, as they are ambiguous for some dates". Hence why I made the change. So is that date 12th Feb 2014 or 2 Dec 2014, for example? Or why does one table on the same page seemingly contradict the other? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is in green under the acceptable column. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly. 2014-02-12 is a YYYY-MM-DD format (not the forbidden YYYY-DD-MM format) in common usage. Check out the footnote to the sentence you are quoting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I gave up on the "war" on bad English earlier. However, I do seem to observe a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here, as evinced by the "Use Canadian Eng" instruction that I've just noticed. I do understand that CT has invested a lot of work on this article, but improvements contributed by others need to be accepted in good faith. Deb (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As an admin, you have no excuse for being unfamiliar with WP:ENGVAR. Your edits were not improvements, and you continued to editwar after being told why. Perhaps you could explain to everyone what your "this is English Wikipedia" edit comment meant, if it wasn't pure trolling, in light of the fact that you'd already been directed twice to why your edit was incorrect. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the Canadian English template is to help editors more easily follow MOS:RETAIN ("When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.") That's all it means, and these templates are pretty common. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • To begin with, my edit was not "incorrect". Even in American English, "probably" as an adverb is always correct, whereas "likely" is "correct" only in American English. I'd go further and suggest that neither word has a place in a wikipedia article, since both indicate opinion rather than fact; whether the Japanese-language sources you used as a reference actually voice this opinion I am, of course, unable to judge. Your preference for "Canadian English" is understandable, but it is a form of English less widely used than either "British" or "American" English, and your stricture on using it shows up a feeling of ownership of the article and suggests the reason you don't like other people touching it. Your edit summaries were simply rude. Your use of the word "directed" is not only indicative of a belief that you have the right to tell other people what to do, but is inaccurate since you did not "direct" me anywhere. You just said "Look it up". Because I'm an admin, I am not allowed to be as rude and offensive to you as you have been to me and to others. I think you should be satisfied with the advantage that gives you. Deb (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
      • "Look it up" means "Look it up". Taking offense to that is beyond silly, especially as you're obviously connected to the internet. You were far more "rude" with your comment, and disruptive with your edit warring---on a TFA, no less. ENGVAR is long-established and well supported policy. If you have a problem with it, this is not the venue to vent about it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Care to comment on this one, Chris Woodrich? Seeing as it was you who asked me to join the discussion here. Deb (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
          • EngVar does not stipulate that only American or British English are allowed for international articles with no strong national ties. As the policy is written, Australian English, Indian English, Canadian English, etc. are all free for use, assuming they are the first English variant to be used consistently. To exclude Canadian English etc., one would need to open an RFC at the ENGVAR page.
          • As for being rude: I think both sides need to cut back on the rhetoric. "Likely" vs. "possibly" has been argued elsewhere (though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head), and to the best of my knowledge there's never been anything prescriptive set in the MOS. A reference to a (preferably Canadian) style guide would be a good place to start.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

            It doesn't take a lot of effort to find a good reference. Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage devotes nearly a page to it, summing up the evidence thus:

            "it would appear that the unqualified adverb began to drop out of use in mainstream British English in the 19th century while it continued to be used in areas remote from the influence of London—Scotland, Ireland, North America (both the U.S. and Canada), and later New Zealand. ... To sum up, the use of likely as an adverb without a qualifier such as more, most, very, or quite is well established in standard general use in North America. It is an old use, dating back to the 14th century. The strictures on it seem to have developed because it dropped out of mainstream literary use in England during the 19th century."

            Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• As far as date formats go, the ISO date format is acceptable in references so long as there are no full dates in the body of the article or the infobox. Seeing that there is one full date in the text, the ISDN dates should be converted to match. —Farix (t | c) 16:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Please see MOS:DATEUNIFY. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Curly Turkey's right; MOS:DATEUNIFY stipulates that body dates should be consistent, and that reference dates should be consistent, but not that body dates should be consistent with reference dates. Hence the three subheadings. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why ?

Hello, why "The strip was made for a cinematograph made by Georges Carette in Nuremberg,{{sfn|Litten|2014|pp=11–13}}" is in comments (<!-- -->) ? Cordially, --Gratus (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it now, but I think Mr Litten himself may have commented to the effect that the statement may not be certain. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont think it's the reason because Mr Litten write "At first he had identified this as a French product, but on re-inspection in 2011 understood that it was a German product by Carette (Matsumoto[2006],89;Matsumoto[2011], 125)". (p 11).

While I read Mr Litten book, I dont found any quote in p.12 to confirm the sentence "Katsudō Shashin may have been made in imitation of such examples of German or other Western animation".

Cordially. --Gratus (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)