Talk:Mayu Sakai

fansite found with a lot of information not yet in the article

I found a lot of information about her on a fan site. [LINK REMOVED] Dream Focus (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are not WP:RS and have no place here, as you are already beyond aware of. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It list information, including the names of other things she has worked on. I didn't put a link to it in the main article, just here. Someone can take the information found there, Google it, and find a notable source to confirm it before adding. Its a good place to get started in the search for knowledge. Dream Focus (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it has. It fails WP:V and as this is a living person, we must be extra cautious about putting in unverifiable info. Or hinting that someone should use that page for any purpose other than personal reading pleasure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. I wasn't hinting at anything. A fansite with a large number of fans participating in a fan club, dedicated to this person and their works, is far more likely to have their facts straight than anywhere else. With that many followers, if anything was in error, one of them would spot it. And I have said, you would Google around for confirmation, or ask them what their sources were. I'm going to email one of them now to ask they contribute to this article. Dream Focus (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's total BS. Fans don't get everything right and are far more likely to make stuff up. Anyway, I have removed the link as it violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by posting such links, which includes talk pages. Not going to bother with the warning template as you just erase them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I didn't notice that if you click around you can find links to illegal downloads of her stuff. Not my intentions. Dream Focus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need that tag? Its too big for the rest of the article!

Why do we need the tag? Its is too big for the rest of the article! And it did fail to get deleted, so you can't nominate it again. The tag is thus useless. This is a stub page, so it doesn't have to meet the same requirements as a normal page does. Dream Focus (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Size has nothing to do with tagging. It did not "fail to get deleted" there was no consensus one way or another, so yes, it can be nominated again, immediately if desired as opposed to the usual 6 month wait preferred. And stub or not, it still has to be notable. She is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Any information is better than none

What's with the revert? Listing the names of the other series she has done, complete or ongoing, successful or not, should be done. Why exactly would you object to that? If you think something needs more information, then you add it, you don't delete what is there. Dream Focus (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced and I could find nothing to support the claim of a series named "momo", and you didn't provide its real title (Japanese title), making it impossible to add the correct information. If she is working on a new series, please actually provide a reliable source on it. It is not listed on her personal website, the JA wiki, nor ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] Search for the word "Momo" to find it. Its on the first page of her site. Dream Focus (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have to go the second page to see that it is actually a series and not just some art work or a character she made. Found it on Amazon.co.jp. Its not actually being published till 2009. Can't find any info on its serialization though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] Its being published now, since they have fansubs out for people to read. It isn't being published as a collection, on its own, until they have enough chapters. That's usually how they do it. But in the current issue of the Ribon magazine, it is there. Dream Focus (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Since the first volume is due Feb 2009, its reasonable to presume it started in 2008 sometime. I do know how they usually do serialization - chapters BTW :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• [3] Ribon magazine list it as a series, and list the author's name as well. Dream Focus (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop overreacting, gravy. Did you not notice I instead put a note in the lead since ALL of her works were in Ribon? For the list of works, we don't generally repeat it over and over again, when one time can do. Did you not notice that NONE of the other entries in her list nor anyone else's list "was serialized in Ribon"?? Now it seems like you are reverting just to revert because of your on going issues with me, which is just plain silly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that particular edit. I wasn't aware that every single thing listed there was done in Ribon. Hard to tell, since someone deleted the pages for her other stuff. And my previous reverts were valid, since you deleted information without taking a few seconds to search the official website of the author, or the magazine published in, to confirm the information. Dream Focus (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

She isn't a freelance manga-ka, so yes, all of her stuff would be for Shuiesha and in Ribon. That's how most manga artists work. Better solution, learn to actually source stuff or confirm it before you just randomly add it, instead of demanding other editors do your work for you. The burden is on those wanting to ADD information to prove it, not those removing unsourced claims, particularly claiming she has a new series 3 years after her last one without even stating anything in your edit summary to back it up. And stop reverting without doing so if someone challenges your unsourced additions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

source of information found at Japanese wikipedia

You don't need a citation for every single sentence. What part of the last editors post, did you find doubtful? The Japanese wikipedia article for her list "Primal orange" (first published by Shueisha SB 76 times honorable Ribbon Award for the original October 2000 issue) And it confirms the other information there, listing a lot more. She had a lot more series that listed here. The magazine would be a reference I suppose. Dream Focus 18:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if you Googled it you also know that the entire part of that last editor's post was stolen from another website, and therefore a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Why don't you stop reverting me just to be a pain and actually do the research you demand other people do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You listed Sources as the reason, not copyrighted, otherwise I wouldn't have reverted it. And your edit had a rather immature tag, you resulting to the stalker name calling thing again. Dream Focus 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are what you are, and others agree that it is exactly what you are. Only you pretend otherwise. You only reverted because I was the one who did it, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I revert things no matter who is doing it. Just check around my other edits. And you do have a history of erasing things instead of checking for sources alone. And I honestly don't care what you believe about me. Dream Focus 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional works

1. Primal Orange (debut)
2. プラチナ Platinum
3. 五月少女 Girl in May
4. ボクたちの旅（連載・全3回） Our journey we (all three series)
5. イチゴナミダ ICHIGONAMIDA
6. ナインパズル（連載・全6回） Nine Puzzle (all series 6 times)
7. 若サマの事情 Samarrai circumstances of young
8. 永田町ストロベリィ （連載・全21回） SUTOROBERII Nagatacho (whole series 21 times)
9. 12月のアリア 12 arias from
10. ぼくは魔法が使えない I can not use the magic
11. ベイビー、フェイク*ファー Baby, fake fur *
12. ピーターパン♠症候群（シンドローム） （連載・全9回） ♠ Peter Pan syndrome (syndrome) (series 9)
13. 王様と王子様と私。 I am the king and prince.
14. エンドレス・マーチ Endless March
15. ロッキン★ヘブン （連載・全32回） ★ ROKKIN Heaven (whole series 32 times)
16. ブラウン・ガーデン駅 Brown Garden Station
17. MOMO 終末庭園へようこそ （連載・『りぼん』2008年9月号から連載中） Welcome to Garden MOMO terminal (serial, Ribbon, 2008 from No. 9 in the series)

The Japanese wikipedia list all of her works. Having trouble moving it to the proper format. Anyone who cares about the years, can look that up and add it later on. I believe all of this should be in the article. Dream Focus 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless sources can be found, no, they shouldn't all be in the article. JA wiki is NOT a reliable source at all. Several of those were listed in the article before, and couldn't be confirmed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[4] Ribbon magazine exist. Just got to find their official site, and see, or the author's official site somewhere. Dream Focus 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who wants it included, do the work to find the sources and verify they exist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nagatachō Strawberry merge

Nagatachō Strawberry has been tagged for merge, specifically by a simple redirect as all publication info is already here, to this article. While it technically was kept in the January AfD, there were only two keep responses, both of which were based on the now non-existent notability criteria that was also rejected in WP:BK discussions. The AfD discussion was also very limited, with only two people actually commenting at all, nor does it limit discussion of a merge/redirect. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no: one of the two !votes did point to other suggestions of notability other than multiple translations, namely, there's hints even in English that the German translation had gotten enough notice to be notable. I don't at the moment, however, have the time at the moment to search for German reviews that demonstrate notability -- possibly after this weekend's deadlines. If a decision on merging could be delayed until then, I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A very brief search through the first page of g-hits got me this review from a site that as best I can tell is reliable (it's not user-generated certainly, and the news stories look comparable to ANNs). More searching if I get another break today. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SplashComics.de appears to be solidly reliable - they've been around since 1999, mostly reviewing mainstream comics but sometimes notice manga, and have a listed staff. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't read German, so its hard to evaluate. One concern would be who is the listed staff? If its just a bunch of fans, that still isn't really RS unless one can show they have some kind of "industry" acknowledgment like AoD or ANN do. In either case, that makes one review...at minimum I'd say 3 would be needed. I have no problem waiting to decide though...wasn't expecting to finish the discussion in day :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there does need to be more than the one, but that one was quickly found -- will look again my next break. I note that de.wikipedia cites SplashComics.de 62 times, often by name in articles -- yes, I know, other wikis have other standards, but it does strongly suggest a certain standing. And the de.wiki is a lot better about citing scholarly sources in manga and comics articles than we are. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Splash comics does in fact seem to be user generated content. It also has direct links to a comic book store site, so I wouldn't consider it relible.--Sloane (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The link to bookstore does not bother me -- most review sites link to stores to make it easier to get what's just been reviewed. You are right there's user generated content, but as best I can tell, it's segregated on a separate user reviews page, rather than with the main staff-written review. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick search finds that AnimePro.de (the German equivalent of ANN) hasn't reviewed this manga, but they HAVE reviewed Peter Pan Syndrome by the same mangaka, something that was, hrmph, overlooked in the AfD for that series. More I hope during a later break. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One review wouldn't have saved that one though. Needs significant coverage...certainly more than one :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There article is fine, as mentioned in the afd. And a merge would be a delete and redirect, no matter what you choose to call it. Just as in the past, there is not a bit of information which would be copied over from the article. You'd have the name and date, and nothing more, as you have done in the past. Dream Focus 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "fine" its just a plot summary. And yes, it would be a redirect, as noted, because that is all that is needed for an unnotable series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge is the same as saying delete, and just put a redirect there, as in the case of Akane-chan Overdrive. So why not just call it that? You aren't going to merge any information, nor allow anyone else too. I guess its too soon for you to simply nominate it for deletion again. Dream Focus 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge is not "the same as saying delete", that is why there are two distinct words. (Redirect is not the same as delete either.) pablo_hablo. 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this in the past, have shown the end result is exactly the same.

• Delete: all information is deleted.
• Merge: the article is deleted, and no new information added to the article it is suppose to be merged too.
• Redirect: article is deleted, and a redirect added to this one.

That is what is going to happen. Unless someone can show exactly what changes will be made if information is voted on to be merged, then you can assume merge means the same as deletion in this case. Dream Focus 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, after a more extensive search in German, I was unable to find any additional reliable-source reviews of Nagatachō Strawberry. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nagatachō Strawberry not licensed in France so No RS Third Party Coverage from there. --KrebMarkt 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged

I merged from the (now deleted) Nagatachō Strawberry, but User:AnmaFinotera reverted it. I think that material about her works belongs in an article about an author. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The merge was removed because it doesn't belong here, period. No valid biography has that sort of content, and it was removed by consensus multiple times over (discusses which happened in the anime/manga project and the AfD, not just the one above which was old). Waiting awhile then coming back and readding it was not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why it doesn't belong here? Links to previous discussions? I did not wait for any special reason. I got busy with other things and forgot about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a BIOGRAPHY not an article about one manga series. Biographies are about people, not infoboxes, invalid non-free images, and paragraphs about a singular work that isn't even notable. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 37#Kotaro Inugami, the big WP:MOSBIO, and lets not forget the AfD closed as DELETE not merge Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagatachō Strawberry. You are blatantly violating community consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of a biography of an author if it doesn't describe her works? Take a look at Douglas Adams for example. There is a rather long section about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and several of his other works. We can lose the infobox if that is what bothers you. There is no non-free image here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apoc2400, you do have a partially valid point -- an article about a creative artist does need to talk about the body of creative work, in order to encyclopedically cover who they are and why they are notable. That said, it needs to be body of work, not covering each individual work in detail. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an ideal article would have both a general description of her style and about individual works. This article is not exactly FA material though. How about this? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If you are going to use Douglas Adams's article as an example, you should note that it does not describe the plot, characters, or reception of the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. Instead it focuses on Adams's work on the series and his attempts to get it adapted onto different media. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. An idea article might have a general description of her style, but that does not include recreating a deleted article just to shove its plot summary somewhere (which is all this "merge" attempt continues to do). As Farix notes, Adam's article does not do what you are attempting, but talks about his struggles with the work and its adaptations. Sakai had no such issues that anyone knows of, not that we'd know because she isn't much more notable than any of her series and there is no real reliably sourcable information about her either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As Farix and AnmaFinotera say, there's a difference between talking about the work and summarizing the plot and characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The key here is that biographies should contain biographical information and not serve as a dumping ground for plot summaries. Plot summaries are not biographical information. The fact remains that the original Nagatachō Strawberry article only contained one line describing who wrote it, who published it, and when it was published. That is the only bit of information from the entire article that is covered by WP:PRESERVE and it is the only information that has been preserved. --Farix (Talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I am the minority here. I hope eventually someone will make a decent article out of this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope so to. She's very popular, and her departure from her publisher caused a big stir in Japan. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Format of list of manga

I was wondering which page lists the proper page of how the list of Mayu Sakai's works should be arranged. Do we have to translate every single title? (Some of the translations are incorrect, by the way, but I'm not going to touch it until I know how to "properly" arrange it.) I find the format pretty messy as some titles are translated and some aren't, and with the "literally" thing... Blackarcadia (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), the section on works other than in English. The format for Rockin' Heaven is correct, because there's an official translation for that one. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayu Sakai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124173602/http://ribon.shueisha.co.jp/data/sensei/sakai_sensei.html to http://ribon.shueisha.co.jp/data/sensei/sakai_sensei.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)