Talk:Mizuki Kawashita

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misc info[edit]

I've made some miscellaneous additions to the article such as a bibliography and the common misconception that she's a guy--Secretwanderer 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that mizuki kawashita is one of the best manga artists out currently. everyone should read ichigo 100%.

Mizuki Kawashita[edit]

Does anyone have her contact?

is there a picture?

UPDATEEE[edit]

please someone update!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.163.169.233 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

Does anyone have a verifiable birthdate for Mizuki Kawashita? I've seen August 30th, May 1st and November 26th, 1965. I change the article to use the November 26th one, since it seemed that source seemed the most credible, but it would be nice if someone knew for sure. --MakiMakiMachine 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes her birthday is in fact August 3, I do not yet know the year though. I'm a fan of her stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurisufa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her birthday is August 30 from "Jump Chronicle"(Weekly Jump's 35th anniversary special mook).--126.114.43.156 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lilim Kiss most popular?[edit]

Just where did this bit of information come from? And what reliable sources verifies this claim? So far, I can't even find a single review. And given that it only lasted for 6 months in WSJ and was compiled into 2 volumes doesn't indicate that it was really that popular. --Farix (Talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was closed on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge[edit]

It says merge, it doesn't say redirect, which is all Farix did, he didn't merge a damn thing. Either you are working in contravention of a posted vote, or you are lazy. Which is is it? You don't have to merge everything, you didn't do anything. Now this is a WP:POINT violation, done in WP:bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content was merged. Author article should have title(s) and year(s) of release, which this one already had. Nothing else to move over. The redirect was appropriate. Stop canvassing and being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not continue attempting to copy/paste the entire Akane-chan Overdrive to this article. It was merged properly, per appropriate guidelines and SOP on merging a book to its author's site. Merge does not mean copy/paste everything, it means move over relevant information. In an author's article, that's title(s) and year(s) of release.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So its basically the same as delete isn't it? Is any information copied over, or is everything the same as it was before? You already had a listing of the series created by the author. Don't call it a merge, if its a delete. A merge would involve at least a brief summary of the series copied over. Dream Focus (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AnmaFinotera and farix (no caps, no respect implied) both have a very long history of making unilateral changes against the wishes and often the completed votes of others. There was no merge done, in fact, nothing was changed on this article after the AfD was closed, which was exactly what farix wanted in the first place. It's not going to go down that way, I have alerted the closing admin and will continue to press this. At this point it is a matter of principle. These misusers are mocking those Wikipedians who actually follow the rules. Not this time. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe have the first paragraph listed for the series. I think having a paragraph for each work created, along with the side box with a picture from the cover of the series, and some basic information there, would look nice. Dream Focus (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate and goes against existing guidelines. This is a biography. Per those guidelines, we do not throw out the plot of everything they have written, and absolutely no covers of books belong in any author's article per WP:NONFREE guidelines. The merge was done appropriate and stands as is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single thing was merged, so it wasn't a merge. The decision was to merge the article, and therefor, the information will be merged. A consensus was reached. Dream Focus (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All appropriate content WAS merged before the AfD ever started. Merge != stick the entire article in another one. Consensus was reached and followed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bull-pucky. NO content was merged. Consensus was to MERGE, not to delete. If we're going to MERGE, let's merge, but you don't have carte-blance to delete. Let's take the Akane-chan content and trim it down a tad. OR let's restore the original article. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to restore it and it will just be deleted all together. The appropriate content WAS merged.[1] Get over it. This is an author's biography, not a place to throw out ridiculous amounts of plot summary and some editor's personal opinions (which is what the bulk of the original article was in the first damn place). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a middle ground here, which seems to be reflected in the article as I write, so I'm glad to see everyone arrived at it. I definitely agree that just having the title and date is not enough - and I reject the notion that an author's page can contain no information beyond that. A brief summary of plot and release information is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, there is no need to merge everything from what was a pretty bad article. The current version seems like a decent compromise. Doceirias (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think that including plot summaries is appropriate for a mangaka article. You don't see them on any other writer's biography. Even Samuel Clemens's bibliography doesn't include summaries of the stories he wrote much less summaries anywhere else in his biography. Now Mizuki Kawashita is no Mark Twain, but the level scholarship in the latter's biography is what we should be shooting for in the former.
And we definitely shouldn't list the release dates of every volume. That would cause the bibliography section to explode if we list all 19 volumes of Strawberry 100% plus the volumes of her other works. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the later; date of first serialization or something, but we don't need to list out the volumes. But the Mark Twain page you mentioned actually does provide a prose overview of his writing career. That's more the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Doceirias (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even when a plot summary is included in an writer's biography, it is always in the context of sourced analysts of the writer's career, and it's usually their most notable works. But a plot summary isn't included for the sake of summarizing the plot of a work, especially when the work isn't notable to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you falsely accursed TheFarix and I of incivility, and are forum shopping to attempt to get someone to support your view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

consensus on summaries[edit]

Chris, Dream Focus, 76.116.247.15 said we needed to have that information there, Doceirias said it was good compromise, while AnmaFinotera and Farix said it shouldn't be there. The consensus seems to be to have it there. Dream Focus (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In YOUR call for "help" at the civility board, another person also said "no, it doesn't belong" while others told YOU to stop the forum shopping and being disruptive. In discussions at the project, two others agreed "it was merged, now hack it down to what should be there: publication date and title". Which was done. The Biography guidelines also firmly support that a plot summary does NOT belong in a biography article. An admin told you the same thing on your talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita&oldid=1208056320"