Talk:Tamagotchi! (TV series)

Proposal: Citation style change

I'm proposing that we switch to the various {{cite}} templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}) to format citations on this page for a few reasons: 1) The template is widely used at Wikipedia. 2) It's much easier for editors to use, because Wikipedia has a built-in citation toolbar above the edit window, which makes citing as simple as ordering pizza online! The details on that can be found at Referencing for Beginners. 3) The template helps to reduce confusion about the information presented in citations, because strings of foreign text and dates will be preceded by clear and standard parameters, such as "title=" "date=" "accessdate=" "page=", etc. 4) The use of the {{cite}} adds a consistent and neat appearance to the reference section of articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Cyphoidbomb and I have been discussing this matter with TacticalMaster on his talk page, as he is insisting on retaining the manual style that he first added to the article on 11 March 2014.[1] My justification for using {{cite web}} style templates is explained on TacticalMaster's talk page, but essentially it is the same as the reasons presented by Cyphoidbomb in his proposal. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am skeptical of the details APA provides, but alas Wikipedia lacks the template for any citation style other than APA. Why I chose MLA is because I must know more of the reference such as the medium of publication, version number (if available), and the website name. If APA is used, it will leave several things unanswered: Did it came from a book? Or it came from a website? A newspaper? Or a blog? Plus, if the source is a website, I like to see if that source was previously updated and be wary of its changes. I would also like to know the name of the webpage and the publisher that made them too. If I want to know if the webpage I'm looking at is respected or just a host site for the source of information. MLA further explains the source by nearly explaining everything in detail so it further supports the given fact. APA however, eliminates the three elements and will make the source too short in detail to provide the supported evidence. Citations need to be detailed as much as possible so at least they're clear and further explored. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in your manual citations in this article that is not handled by {{cite web}}.

Manually formatted

Formatted using {{cite web}}

In fact, {{cite web}} removes redundacy. "Web.", as used in your manually formatted citations is completely redundant since it's obvious from the blue links (not to mention the template title) that the medium is the World Wide Web. Note too that Reflinks, which is one of the most widely used tools for correcting references in articles, uses {{cite web}} in its interactive mode.[2] --AussieLegend (✉)

I seriously agree to this, source redundancy is an issue. And besides AussieLegend is right about this, Reflinks is better and was more reliable and causes less clutter, not to mention that the entire page as a whole needs to be rewritten a lot in order to be more pleasing to the admins. Sorry, but a lot of us agreed more on Wikipedia's citation method more than yours TacticalMaster.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would the medium of publication be "redundant" on your claims? The medium element in the MLA helps identify what form the source is in. Hey, I once tried to use a book reference on this article and it's not even a web (although I have to understand it had to be removed because I was lacking the page number). Because of these two. But why do you justify that Reflinks will identify it as a web? How would these two be redundant with one another? Because there's already an identification mark? No. Only the publication medium identifies such a source and that only the Reflinks just only .

There is no such thing as a "perfect reference." As long it makes sense enough to be read, then it's readable. We can't just waste what is the majority and contemplate on idealism of a "perfect article." ---TacticalMaster (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well what you were still can't understand how some things work here, we have no choice to pretty much vote the citation change and pretty much downvote your decision. Were very sorry, but if you're gonna be this stubborn, then all of us will never reach a certain agreement. Reference styles needs to be changed, A LOT because not all of us like how it was shown here. And like millions of Wikipedia Articles here all use APA because its much more manageable than the MLA method.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Using the cite tool or templates doesn't require average people be familiar with all the various referencing styles to edit a particular article constructively. It's cake. You just fill in the blanks. In one of the existing Tamagotchi references I see テレビドガッチ. I have no idea what that represents, nor will the average person. But if a template had been used, I could look at the source and discern that it is the publisher because of the clear "publisher=テレビドガッチ" parameter. Another benefit of using the templates: you can slap an ISBN into the citation tool and it'll propagate fields for you, which saves time, and will make it easier to find the source. {{Cite web}} allows for the introduction of "archiveurl=", so when the primary URL inevitably 404s, we can switch "deadurl=no" to "deadurl=yes" and quickly revive the article. Another compelling argument: plaintext is ancient tech. Templating is forward-thinking as it allows for the easy incorporation of the article's content into current and future technologies. Plaintext requires that machines figure out what each string of data means in order to incorporate it into tomorrow's encyclopedia. Blah blah blah. Yes, you want MLA, but what you're going to get is bare URLs from lazy editors. Are you going to manually format those to MLA, or use a tool that does things quick and easy, like Reflinks? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a lot of users would notice the template. Some might ultimately miss all those extra information too. Unless read. But even for an inexperienced user (and I'm assuming you're not going to direct this on me), they might not be able to understand it. And why are you contemplating that manual insertion is bad than "auto insertion," when they actually go both ways in inserting the elements? Cyphoid? Either way, writing manually or template, it's still both ways of writing them in.

But the question is, why is APA beter than MLA? All I'm seeing is that you're discussing templates and the fact we're not talking about switching reference styles.

Also Cyphoid, that Japanese text you were trying to read is part of the "name of website" for the MLA. Now of course it is Japanese because you can't read it, but the name of the website is supposed to let us know where it originated from. The "name of website" element on the citation helps a lot because at least I know where it came from. But the publisher part you tried to say doesn't make any sense to me. And because APA only has the "publish" element in it, it confuses me because I do not know what the name of the website it came from. Is it a respected website? Or the website just hosts the source? The publisher alone only tells me the publish of the WEBSITE, and I do not know the name of the source's website name because APA is too short of a reference. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a matter of which is "better", but which one future editors are more likely to understand when adding their own citations. Other editors will add information to the article and will be using the various {{cite}} templates because it is more convenient and they don't have to worry about formatting. Also, if the publisher and the name of the website are the same, I don't see any benefit in including that name twice, nor does stating that an external link is to a website (that should be obvious). —Farix (t | c) 13:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• You're right, Tactical, I said that the string of Japanese letters described the publisher, and that doesn't make sense to you, because I had to GUESS what the string of Japanese letters meant. That was my point. The string is not clearly labeled as it would be with {{cite}}. Beyond that, I'm not interested in debating why APA is better than MLA. I honestly can't tell whether you know this or not, but it bears mentioning:

Wikipedia has a built-in Javascript tool in the edit window that allows editors to quickly add citations by filling in blank fields. The tool outputs {{cite}} templates.

If the various {{cite}} templates produce references in APA style, I don't particularly care. What makes sense to me, is using the easy-peasy system that produces clearly-identified data, rather than expecting children and middle-of-the-bell-curve editors to familiarize themselves with the myriad of citation styles. It is easier to tell a new user, "Hey, just use the pull-down menu in your edit window and fill in the blanks" than it is to say, "Hey, this article uses an MLA citation style, so you're going to want to familiarize yourself with that, then resubmit your references in that style." Anybody who's been editing at Wikipedia for a while knows how difficult it is to expect the masses to do the bare minimum, let alone more than the bare minimum.

Now we've been at this for three days for a niche article with three references. I think it's time to pull the plug on this discussion and move on. We've been unable to convince you, and you've been unable to convince us. But consensus seems to have been established for the use of {{cite}} templates. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And Support to this agreement. This is getting nowhere because we cannot reach an agreement due to one policy here for 3 days now. It's not like using APA is poisonous to the article itself you know.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hold on Cyphoid. I think you apparently misinterptreted what I was trying to say about the Japanese text you eyed on and what I was describing. That text is the name of the website, and not publisher. The name of the website is supposed to support the reference because at least we know where it came from. I don't understand Japanese either, but I know which is considered a name and a reference element. The point in this correction message is that the text you identified is the website name that further supports the MLA reference. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I understood what you were saying. In my response I said that I had to guess what the string meant because it is not clearly identified as "website" as it might be if editors used the built in citation tool. The fact that I incorrectly guessed "publisher" only underscores the importance of using templates, which clearly identify strings of text. It is unreasonable to expect casual contributors to familiarize themselves with the various citation styles when there is an easier option. And although I mean to be respectful, I think you've stonewalled the issue long enough and it's time to yield to consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell me why you assumed I'm trying to put this in a stalemate? I'm stating my facts back and forth with you to get more information in a healthy dispute. I'm still trying to get more information before I ultimately agree to the consensus.

So I already stated the elements of MLA. Now let's try discussing about the template being an easier use. As I said, most users won't know how to do that. If you say that template citations are consistent, then where is this "consistency" that the reader is supposed to see? Consistency requires detail, it needs to be detailed thoroughly as much as possible. It's because consistency means "accuracy." So it needs accurate details. And you think templates are the solution for this? If there is a template for APA for "consistency," then is there a template for ALL the other styles, when WP:CITESTYLE even allowed all the styles? So, let's make them "consistent" too if we're talking about consistency over and over again.

And to say more about the reference insertion: "It's not possible that a user will expect to know there is an auto-reference button on the editing page." BUT, the fact that an overlooked page from other advanced editors will be missed, and having that format first written, then it ultimately followed the Citation style rule. This page was overlooked three years ago, filled with minimalistic content, and nobody took action. Then in 2014, action was taken...with a heavy overhaul of the entire page. And now here I see this dispute being started about contemplating on "perfect consistency" and it continues to expand, in order to come to a final decision like a healthy editor. No wonder why the page was labeled as "low-importance." ---TacticalMaster (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tactical, I have made over 17,000 edits to Wikipedia, (a mere drop in the bucket to what AussieLegend has contributed) and this is the first time I've seen a four-day dispute about referencing style in an article about children's entertainment. Consensus has been established for the use of the {{cite}} template, so debating the nuances of whether or not users will fill in the cite fields (which I addressed days ago in "Yes, you want MLA, but what you're going to get is bare URLs from lazy editors.") is a fool's errand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't pride on reputation. It does not make you king or anything, nor there are any guideline on Wikipedia informing about respect. We're just regular editors and there's no such thing as "king of all editors."

Back on the question, which wasn't answered yet, if you think that template would make it "consistent," then why not we get a template for that too? APA has the template, in which you assume that it's being widely used. So why not the others, as well? Because the wikipedia specified every known style on WP:CITESTYLE, and saying that you think templates are better, let's make sure it applies to them as well so it satisfies both parties. But I'm not a "fool," as you say, and you shouldn't be thinking of that as me either. I'm trying to support my reason why MLA should be still used, and you're still contemplating on the template usage. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet again you misunderstand the point of my statement, which was intended to illustrate that in my experience, this stonewalling behavior, and the length of this discussion, is not typical for something as minor as reference formatting for a niche article with a scant three references. You don't seem very responsive to that information, though. Fool's errand is an expression that means a pointless task. I was not calling you a fool. I don't plan to answer any of your other questions above, because consensus has been established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If the question is not answered, then there will be unexplained facts to discover and we're all going to be flying around blindly without the truth we're trying to find. I am not stonewalling (neither you should be making remarks about a user's personality), I am trying to open up another door and explore more facts like a curious reasoner here. If the doors are kept closed, regardless of the circumstances, we won't be moving closer to revelation. I am still in a disagreement because I have to hear why continued template consistency favorism is so important. But because WP:CITESTYLE specified the styles to be used, but still the users favor template because it is "consistent," then why did Wikipedia allowed all the citation styles in the first place and here I see strong favoritism? That's the problem I saw here. So here I tried another way to see another view in this debate. I just recently proposed a way that will satisfy both parties. That would of opened up new topics to discuss this consensus. If there is no answer, then we're never going to find the answers we're looking for. I have not agreed to do the template switch around for "consistency" because the new question has yet to be answered. The question from my previous reply is: "If template would make it "consistent," then why not we get a template for all the other styles too? APA has the template, now let's do it for the others so they be all consistent too."

Listen, I am an honest editor here, trying to resolve the issue as I can with you. If this conversation does not continue, between you and me, we're both going to be stuck here wasting more of our "sanity" (as Blackgaia said in his summary when I have yet to hear from him) as we've haven't reached a revelation. Be patient and honest, or we're going to go around in circles. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We've already addressed your main concerns and I think we've all provided fairly compelling reasons why the template is the better choice. I don't care to reiterate those reasons, and we are not required to provide answers to your total satisfaction. AussieLegend, BlackGaia02, TheFarix and I have all expressed a preference for the {{cite}} templates through discussion, and I am asserting that consensus has been achieved. We do not need your permission, or for you to "agree" to change the citation style. We need only a majority opinion, i.e. consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What will that leave the only one who only opposed that? Leave them to cower in a corner? Or for the victor to become even more careless in the future? Because this debate has "ended", many questions have been left unanswered and it all comes down to this. There's no explanation for this or that and it's because everybody gives up. And now, I see that users have lost their pure honesty. We may have different views, but you cannot be brutal about it. The decisive conclusion only makes the being more selfish because the more yet-to-be explained have all but been forgotten. The conclusion has been reached, but it only makes future debates more carelessly in exploring other people's beliefs. Consensus or no consensus, continuing to explore other people's beliefs is still essential. What if that's the "truth?" Sadly, due to strict etiquette the higher up people have been follow, they choose safety rather than taking risks. They chosen not to sacrifice just to help a helpless being. Why? Just why wouldn't they show a lenience to help the desperate one in need of help? But now because of this, the desperate got even more desperate because of ignorance.

I said that I need more reasoning come out of this "majority vote" made it all useless. I have been left with unexplained answers and here it is: Nothing. No more has come out because of the majority choosing not to help the helpless and this conclusion inflicted cruelty. Ignore this message if you want. But understand that walking away to end it all will fuel idealism and obsession. Obsession is a curse and to be obsessed in perfection is a wild goose chase to the point of others misunderstanding the idealism of perfection.

PS: Cyphoid, you left an edit summary that is offensive to me because of that second sentence remark you made. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Characters section is too small to open up a separate article

I opened up this discussion because of the removal of the character section, done by Blackgaia02. I disagree with this removal, because the current content mainly focused on the main characters. Because the main characters are only described and that they're in short detail, it's not enough to make this article too long. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Character sections doesn't need to focus on just the main characters alone, there's lots and lots of them in the anime itself and pretty much takes up an entire page if necessary to cover every one of them (Either main, sub or just non-important ones). That's what you call branching out. Look at the JA Wikipedia and see the character section, then tell me it that's too much work for you.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Japanese reader here and based on the activity in this article, there aren't a lot of users who can type, read, or translate Japanese. Instead we get English sources, limited to only the main characters. It's the only source we have. So how can we know the other characters if they speak we don't know? Also, you need to watch what you say to other users, BlackGaia. You're making it sensitive. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not enough reason why to re-add the character section itself. Extensive knowledge of the series requires understanding Japanese Language for all the information it spits out. That, alone is pretty obvious. Discussion over.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Blackgaia, you cannot just take charge of the situation by stating your position like you own the article by saying "Discussion over." If you think it deserves a separate page, then say it without that snappy comment in the end. Stay cool and avoid incivilty. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about it, but you also need to pretty much know how to compromise things too. I just excluded the whole section because not just it was pretty vague but it never covered everything which would take another page. I will be civil on this and say something honestly: the article is needing of a serious cleanup and editing. The old version shows how badly done the article was done before a lot of things are cleaned up. And it still needs a lot of improvements due to how its written.

I'm not gonna be rude here, but Articles need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines even the minor ones. Anime-based articles are a big concern to the guidelines themselves because anime like these tend to not have clear information or sources because majority of the anime released is aimed at kids. It's not like I tried to own the article alone but I actually want to make the whole thing clean and readable for other editors to edit with ease. Is not that there is no soul who can edit the page, and I'm trying to fix things alone without someone giving me any help or input. Its hard and I myself know there's no editor or user in this site who knows to edit a children's anime article better than I do since they don't know Japanese.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to compromise too. It's a discussion about all the parties agreeing to one thing through careful negotiation and etiquette. And yes, the whole article may look underdeveloped before you and Cyphoid came along but there's nothing most editors can do about expanding it since it is a Japanese-only anime an all (as you said). To top it off, translated sources are limited.

Back on the discussion, if you think you can add more to the characters, then write it. If you're saying that you are fluent in Japanese, then go for it. You managed to (somehow) get development details of the series. So, if you're able to read all this Japanese, then I ultimately agree with you if you can think of all the characters then. At least there is one editor who is doing all of that deemed impossible for conventional English editors. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)