Talk:Minami-ke

message: The Japanese version of Valentine's Day (:ja:バレンタインデー) appeared in the sixth episode of Minami-ke Okawari. Don't know if we should incorporate it into the article though. Here's an image of the moment in question. The fund raising notice at the top is still visible too, so they must have taken a shot of it only a few months ago.--十八 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia references are not usually notable in themselves. If the reference caused an incident or something, it would be notable. --68.161.182.144 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Why does many other pages about anime, games and TV shows/movies and even music bands have references noted in their articles, but this artice shouldn't have any references noted? Ofcourse, there's a question in hand in HOW to incorporate this reference. Many people must haven't even noticed this reference, so it would be pretty interesting to read. bladez (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia featured in Minami-ke

message: Is there any verifiable evidence that the animation studio behind series 1 wants their name romanised as the latter? Besides another easily editable Wikipedia page, that is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.70.126 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a frustrating search, no I cannot find any other mention, nor an official website, nor third-parties using this romanization (or any romanization) except English sites like ANN which use Doumu or Dōmu.--十八 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only lead I have is a screenshot (http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4929/mk0401236nn4.jpg), taken from around 0:12:36 of series 1, episode 4. Note the logo in the bottom-left of the game box.  91.109.12.215 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dōmu vs. Daume

message: Ecchi elements? --68.161.182.144 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say so, and besides, ecchi isn't classified as a genre.--十八 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Is there any mention of the new season supposedly green lit? 78.105.250.11 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, it airs on January 4, 2009. Official Website or an announcement from Anime News Network 151.9.197.28 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Season

message: The summary of the characters seems to be lacking important details. For example, why are the Minami girls living alone with no mother or father? What's their support? The character listing just baldly says that they are living in an apartment by themselves. --Gwern  (contribs) 04:10 12 November 2008 (GMT)
:This question has not been addressed so far in the manga or anime, so it's more a matter of the information not being there.Cicero225 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete summary

message: In the manga section, after volumes, are listed two "funbooks."  I'm fairly certain, especially after browsing these two links (with the same ISBN):TV Animation Book, Minami-ke+5-2 Book, that they are actually "fanbooks".  Is there some special reason for calling them funbooks?
Yeah it's nitpicky, but it just bothers me.Cicero225 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like "funbook" is typo creep. The first external link you provide shows "fanbook" (spelled in latin alphabet) in the cover photo.—Tokek (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I'll change it then.  I was just worried that "funbook" might be some sort of generic term I didn't know.Cicero225 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Funbook vs. Fanbook

message: From what I've researched, this is a last name, so Chiaki was being polite. While not actually part of the Minami-family, I think a strong friendship was created. No first name is given, but lost forever due to Kana. Was there sufficient data in episode 11 to consider Yamada notable? Tyciol (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think its notable enough to deserve its own redirect or entry in Yamada. It only appeared once, after all, so it's not like it's some major thing.--十八 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yamada (rock)|Yamada]]

message: Okay then. Per WP:ELNO point 12: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. This wiki fails both those criteria, so it should be removed.--十八 00:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary was a common sense application of that guideline - in general, Wikias don't have the historical stability and participation to pass WP:EL. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Wikipedia guidelines to back up Wikipedia guidelines is a logical fallacy via Circular reasoning.--Sxerks (talk)
ELNO - "substantial number of editors" criteria is irrelevant, because an infinite number of monkeys can create "Hamlet" or one person(Shakespeare) can. It would be interesting to know why it was added to EL in the first place.
ELNO - "substantial history of stability" criteria is undefined. The wiki has been stable since inception.
The point in linking to external wikis from any Wiki farm is to help users find information beyond the scope of Wikipedia and that is not available from official sources.
It is also there to provide a place for users to add information that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and to foster and grow that information in order to come back and create better articles at Wikipedia.--Sxerks (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: No, WP:ELNO is there for a reason; don't just dismiss it when you don't like it.--十八 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, for trying to act authoritative, but I'm not impressed by childlike behavior.  I have debunked (not dismissed) your criteria in respect to this article.  As far as those general wiki-wide guidelines, they also need to be addressed as there is no logic to back them up. And "No, WP:ELNO is there for a reason" is Begging the question.--Sxerks (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have tried to explain to you why the link shouldn't be added. Now I'll take it to WP:ANIME, where multiple other editors will tell you the same thing.--十八 18:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The Wiki link clearly fails WP:EL. It does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion, it is a fansite, pure and simple. Sxerks, whether you agree with the guideline is irrelevant. You are, in essence, spamming this article with links to a wiki with which you are personally involved. There are very very few wikis of any kind that meet WP:EL and this is clearly not one of them. Consensus is clearly against you in this matter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the link in question fails WP:EL. As AnmaFinotera states, links to other wiki's almost always fail the criteria for inclusion. David Bailey (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Wiki EL 

message: Right turn only review vol 1 --KrebMarkt 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANN right turn only 

message: needs information on the 5 music/drama cds96.50.4.248 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio cds 

message: I looked at the Japanese article, and apparently there are now 8 manga volumes. There might be more new info I didn't see. Somebody who can read Japanese better than I should check it out. 71.199.12.36 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have dealt with the information about the new volumes and thus stripped the outdated header.Cicero225 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated