Talk:Ballad of a Shinigami

Drama Version

What about the drama version? No info?121.6.120.218 07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Series End

Has this series ended? --129.107.240.1 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The light novels are still on-going. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Demographic

The text says this story was serialized in a shojo magazine, but the classification on the right says this is Seinen. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.32.122 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Girl's name

Sorry I made the Episode 1 section. However, I cannot remember the girl's name. Bisurge 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

The original version of this work is the light novels, as such, the image in the infobox should be the best representation of that media. A cover of the first novel is a far better representation than the logo alone, and provides an illustration of the series and its main character. A series logo is only the defacto image to use in anime, television, and OVA series. Even then, a DVD cover is often considered a better choice, and in films posters and DVD covers are the default. As for the concerns about the infobox length, there is nothing in the infobox instructions or anywhere else that I've seen that demands the infobox be kept shorter by reducing the image, only that the width should be kept under control. This isn't a stub, so its not like the article can't support the extra pixels.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Reception has to go above media? Where does it say that we have to add in commas despite the fact that they are added in automatically when rendered in the article? Why can't you just compromise even a little bit?! And please don't try to spill out guidelines which you yourself aren't even sure of. For one, per WP:DATE#Full date formatting: "The same format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article".--十八 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reception goes above media by the MOS. Have you never looked at it? WP:MOS-AM. For the dates, the Date MOS and discussions on the talk page against the stripping out of commas as being inappropriate. I'm very sure of that, so don't say I'm spilling out guidelines I'm not sure of. Go read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Concern: commas and dates. The Full Date formatting does not apply to reference templates. The templates will automatically format the references, so using the wrong format messes up the template. That is why the instructions specify the date as yyyy-mm-dd! And no, I generally don't compromise when I feel doing so would compromise the quality of an article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no where in the text of WP:DATE which states commas have to be used. Don't take some talk page discussion as consensus when it's clearly disputed and not even mentioned on MOS page itself. And how can you stand there and tell me that "full date formatting does not apply to reference templates" when it clearly states: "the same format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article"? And I'm not talking about the accessdate= code, since I know that has to always be in the yyyy-mm-dd format, but the Date code should still be consistent, as the guideline says.--十八 01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We go with what the template instructions say, not the guidelines. Call is WP:IAR or something else, but TONS of FAs use the citation templates per their instructions, which use ISO formatting and there has NEVER been a problem. If you don't like the instructions, take it up with all of the templates and get them changed first. {{Cite web}} instructions: "date: Full date of publication, preferably in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." {{Cite book}} instructions "date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." and so on. You are also misinterpreting that statement. It is refering specifically to FULL date formatting, and that all full dates in which the month is spelled out, with the day and the year, should either all be in American format or all in International format. It has nothing to do with ISO formatting or partial date formatting. It is solely talking about full dates of that nature.

If you have time to waste on pointless and useless and downright silly removal of commas from dates, why not go add real information to the article instead, gravy. I don't get why anyone thinks that is somehow a good use of their time. The MOS does note that commas are preferred in the table, however it isn't clear and that is why that is being disputed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I searched for "comma" in WP:DATE and found no mention of commas being preferred. Or are you talking about someplace else? And then the thing with the reference dates, I guess that's up to a conflict between MOS and template guidelines, which only makes problems, such as this one, arise.

But the thing that really gets me, the thing that makes me truly wonder, is this comment by you on March 11, 2008. If you really agree with this statement of yours, why did you add in the commas? Even better, before I even cleaned up this article in February, when it looked like this, no commas were used between the dates. I find it very interesting how you say Where there is disagreement or the article currently has a mix of commas and no commans, then the earliest format used should be respected and the article changed to be consistent with that format. yet you are going against this in this very article.--十八 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There is no conflict. The part you quote does not apply to the dates in the reference tags when they are in ISO format, only to dates in full format (which ISO is not considered to be). As for the quote, I changed my mind when later discussion made it very clear that commas should always be used and that the whole comma stripping is not only unnecessary and a waste of time, but inappropriate and against the MOS. (and you may also note that the addition Shesshomaru and I worked out was wholly rejected). Now, there being disagreement on how to clarify that is another whole issue. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

Fine, I can accept all that. But what about this edit? Show me where it states this in the non-free and image use guidelines.--十八 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't find it anymore, however images should be in the section they are illustrating, not other sections. There were not any whitespace issues for me, so I don't know why you felt you needed to move it so I've put it back in the anime section with a cleaned up caption. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might wonder about the white space. Open up this revision in IE and you'll see what I mean. And seeing as how you nor I cannot find said guideline, and seeing as it's not hurting anyone to place an image above it's intended section in order to reduce unneeded white space (in IE, and possibly other browsers), I'm moving it back.--十八 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked in both IE and Firefox and there is no whitespace problem at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what do you call this?--十八 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What browser resolution are you using? None of that whitespace appears on my computer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Browser resolution? If you mean my computer screen resolution, it's at 1280x800.--十八 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why you are seeing white space. Anyone using a high resolution is going to see it. If someone looks at the page with an even higher resolution, they will still see white space. 1024x768 is the current common, followed by 800x600. 1024 is usually what most people work on layout for. Its never going to be perfect for all resolutions, especially higher ones. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But I can't be the only person to use a higher resolution who browses Wikipedia. Shouldn't we make the article appear similar to anyone?--十八 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to a point. Full 75% of the internet is using a lesser resolution, and if someone with a higher resolution than you looks at the article, they will still see a bunch of white space. That is inevitable and unavoidable because higher resolution means the text will take up less lines. The only thing I can see discussing it, though, is Wikipedia:Layout, which mentions "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image should not overwhelm the screen; 300px may be considered a limit, as this is approximately half Wikipedia's text space's width on a 800x600 screen. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the width of images and templates on a given page." (which is finally where I saw the part about where an image should be placed :P ). AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, consider this: Since the manga and anime sections on this article are so close together, and the fact that the anime DVD box set image is longer than it is wide, it makes sense to place it a section above so that it fits fine in the anime section (and removes white space [albeit on high-res computers], and doesn't interfere with the episode table). If, say, the manga section was 50 lines long, then of course it wouldn't make sense to place an anime image in there.--十八 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. For me, it just looks ugly and like its a misplaced image. The image fits perfectly in the anime section for 75% of internet users. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So we should just ignore 25% of users? What if Intel neglected to include a keyboard for 25% of computers made? I think some people would be pretty annoyed.--十八 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So we should mess up the screen for 75% of users to take care of a negligible issue for 25%? Hope you aren't a web designer. :P We no longer fully cater to 800x600, though we do at least in keeping image widths below 300 in most cases. But as 1024 is the lion's share of the resolutions being used, that should be the one used with reasonable accommodations for others. I don't think avoiding a small amount of white space for a smaller percentage of users is a good reason to ignore the general guideline that images should be placed in the section of relevance. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mess up the screen"? Come on. I'm not the one trying to push for more white space in favor or layout guidelines. :P. I believe 25% is a reasonably large percentage when you take into account the millions of Internet users worldwide. It would be like depriving millions of people the opportunity to have articles that look nice, and isn't formatting an article to be visually appealing (and thus easier to read) one of the goals of an editor?--十八 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the white space you're getting is that bad for visual appeal. Other articles have deliberately added that much space on purpose to keep an image from running into the next section. Either way, not worth arguing over. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

But back to the infobox image. You say that the logo is only used when the anime/OVA is the primary work, though I don't see much use of this besides when I look at some of the GAs under WP:ANIME. However, I am still wondering how you came under the impression that the logo was only meant to be used in the infobox if the anime is the primary work.

Also, I would like to add how this article, while primarily centering around the light novels, is not only about the light novels. What I'm getting at is, why should a light novel image be used to represent the entire work when the manga, anime, and dramas are very different in their styles, story telling, and media representations. It makes little sense to me when this series is split between many different media types yet we have to use the light novel image as a physical representation for the entire work despite it only representing one part of the whole. On the other hand, a logo serves as a representation of the series as a whole and is easily recognizable to anyone entering the article for the first time. I realize the with the light novel image we also get a view into the light novel format, but that is why it was in the article in the first place, in the light novel section. I just think it's very narrow to use the light novel image for the infobox, and seeing as there is no guideline as to which image to use for a given infobox, and because this article covers all media types of Ballad, don't you agree that a logo may better represent the whole instead of a single part?--十八 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The light novels are the primary work, so it should be the first representation seen. The logo is not any better a representation, and is nothing but a stylized name. That conveys little to no information. The light novel cover, being the first work, gives a representation of the main topic, which is the light novels, as well as conveys the series' art style. The anime and drama styles, being secondary forms, can be represented in their sections (as is already seen with the DVD cover). AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but considering how much of the article is in fact not about the light novels (a good 80% of the content in the media section is about adaptations), I still see it as a very narrow view of the series. Plus, the light novel cover only conveys the art style of the novels. Yes, the anime/manga styles were based on that style, but they are still different, and the drama is live-action no less. Now if you removed the fact that the novel cover conveys art style, you're left primarily with a logo, so it seems we're disagreeing more on if there should be something added to the logo, or just have it blank. If the article was only about the novels, or there were no other adaptations, I'd agree with you, but as of now, I can't.--十八 06:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~sigh~ I give up. This is why I've stopped working on any article you jump on, because we just can't agree on anything and I'd rather just not deal with trying at all. Its also why I'm losing my joy at working on Wikipedia. Do whatever you like, not like it will be going to GA or FA anytime soon. I'm not going to work on this much anymore anyway so as to avoid spoiling myself to the novels. However, please keep in mind we use a combo of MOS. Whether the article currently reflects it or not, the fact is that Ballad of the Shimigami is first and foremost a series of novels. In novel articles they use a cover image, not a logo, to depict it, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines. The same should apply with here, but instead undo weight is being given to adaptations which are only taking up most of the article because no one has bothered to put in the novel info. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the only reason it says that at WP:NOVEL is because normal novels don't have things like adaptations, and if they do, they'd most likely be split, such as a movie being based on a novel or the like. It's perfectly reasonable, then, to use the novel cover for the infobox image for an article only or primarily about the novel, but this article is a myriad of works, not just the novels. Falling back on guidelines that support the primary work is ignoring the other works entirely.--十八 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not being ignored at all, but fine, if the logo is a perfect representation of all the works, then why have a cover image and an DVD image in the article at all? If you are going to claim a logo is a singularly perfect representation, then those are unnecessary and excessive per WP:NONFREE. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Now wait, don't take my words a different way. The logo represents the entire series, yes, but that's why it should be in the infobox. It only serves to represent the series as a whole if it's the first thing seen, otherwise it loses it's significance entirely. Like you obviously couldn't use the logo to represent the anime by itself, but for the entire series it works perfectly. Same thing goes for the novels; the logo cannot be used to represent the novels by themselves. Other images to represent other parts of an article, such as the novels, manga, or anime, should rightfully be in the article near or in the sections they are meant to reflect because only these specific images can represent the specific things they are meant to represent.--十八 07:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensor

In the edit summary, "Bost Digital Entertainment" is said to "Not [be] the distributor. The series was indeed licensed by a Japanese-based company, which is released it overseas on the Internet; that's not the same as the distributor of the DVDs in Japan." Did they license and release in English? If so, in which countries? The flagicon should denote the countries it was released to in English, NOT the country the company is based in. If it wasn't released in English, it needs to be removed. Also, the text needs to be corrected to reflect this. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in the prose. Check the anime section. Bost, a Japanese-based company, licensed it and released it with English subtitles on the Internet for Australia and New Zealand.--十八 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the flags and for adding the missing "with English subtitles" :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

English Manga Publisher?

Isn't the company that publishes the English translation of the manga Seven Seas Entertainment? Grell the Reaper (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Seven seas released the English version of the light novel, not the manga series (I have both here). Here is the manga series: [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ballad of a Shinigami. 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/20080914064127/http://www.mediaworks.co.jp/contents/momo/index.php to http://www.mediaworks.co.jp/contents/momo/index.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)