User talk:JJJAGUAR

File:Information.svg Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article :Oshi no Ko. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: I would also like to note that this text separately talks about opinion of journalists on the criticism of the manga final, so it obviously had to explain at least in general terms why this caused disputes. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::"had to explain at least in general terms"

::Mentioning a specific character dead it's not "general terms". The manga has 166 chapters and you are reducing all the critical reception over several years into a single "Aqua died". It would be different if the title of the section was "Ending Reception", but it was "Critical Reception". JJJAGUAR (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:"and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning"

:Except the title of that section was not Plot, nor Ending, it was " JJJAGUAR (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:"and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning"

:Except the title of that section was not Plot, nor Ending, it was "Critical Reception", that make you think you are going to read a general overview of how well/bad received, it's NOT neccesary by any means to include the specifics of the ending in such a section. JJJAGUAR (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: What "all the critical reception over several years"? This paragraph was never implied as a review of the entire manga. This paragraph was completely devoted to the criticism of the final, one of the main points of which was the death of the character. Also, the fact that the section is called a "critical reception" does not mean that any information in it must necessarily view the entire manga as a whole. Yes, the section was incomplete, but that is why the template hung there with a request to expand it. If you think that the section does not have enough critical assessment of manga in general, then you can always add it on the basis of authoritative sources. According to the template I mentioned. But this does not mean that you can reject the information that somehow criticizes its individual aspects, even if they are spoiler. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"The fact that the section is called a "critical reception" does not mean that any information in it must necessarily view the entire manga as a whole."

:::Yes, it absolutely does. A reader following the structure of "Oshi no Ko - Manga - Critical reception" would expect a general overview of the reception of the manga as a whole. Every single chapter received individual critic reviews, and you are starting the section with the ending critics, ignoring everything else. It doesn't matter if the section is incomplete, the character dead is not relevant for such a general section. You are clearly not looking at this from the perspective of someone visiting Wikipedia with the intention of finding out whether the critical reception was good or bad, knowing something so specific is not necessary. That was happened to me, and I don't want to keep arguing to random people in Wikipedia after such a bad experience, if you want to add the data again and ruin other people's experiences, go ahead. JJJAGUAR (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, can you quote the rules of the wiki, where did you find such text? Because I have never seen or heard about it and this, frankly, contradicts the prevailing practice of writing articles. I understand that you were misleading and sympathized with you, but writing articles on Wikipedia are based on certain rules and guidelines, and not on the convenience or views of individual users. If everyone rewritten articles in accordance with personal understanding (Moreover, worrying about the alleged subjective experience of alleged readers), then chaos would simply reign in the project. So I just have to repeat my words that the name “critical reception” does not imply that any information in the section should contain only criticism of manga in general, while any information of some individual parts, and based on reputable sources, should be avoided. In the end, the section was also not called "General reception of the Manga" and as I already said, the text clearly described only the ending of the manga, without saying anything about the manga itself as a whole. I also want to draw your attention that we write articles based on authoritative sources, so the “reviews for each chapter” you mentioned, which were most likely written by bloggers or fans as a whole, cannot be used for this. So sorry, here we cannot help you. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please stop editing the same comment, I just received several notifications, learn to think about your comment before posting it. I already explained twice why I think the character death is not revelant for that section, the "rule" you are asking is the basic rule of including relevant information in a coherence structure. Even the first person who replied to me agree with it (Xexerss), you are free to keep discussing with them. Btw, if Screen Rant is your "authoritative source" you should now they have several articles about several events in the series, not just the final. JJJAGUAR (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I edit the text because English is not my native language and I want my message to be as clear to you. In which article about the Wikipedia rules can I read about this "basic rule"? You did not ignore my words that the articles are written on the basis of the rules and guidelines of the project, and not our personal views on things, right? And I do not know what words of Xeross you refer to, as far as I see he told you the same words. No, we shouldn't obligatorily write about something. As I said above, Wikipedia is a voluntary project and all the edits that users make are made voluntarily. That is why I suggested you add information with the reception of all manga on the basis of authoritative sources, if you think that the article is so lacking this. All this is completely voluntarily. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::English it's not my first language either, and I don't see how that's an excuse to add entire new paragraphs to your messages, you have to keep in mind that people could read your comment the moment is posted and they don't want to read again with the edits.

:::::::::: Not everyone speaks a foreign language is also good or can think in advance the correct formulations like you. You must understand this well if you are so worried about other people. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You can find Xexerss comment in the revision history: "On second thought, whether it is a spoiler or not, it may not be necessary to detail the events for the negative reception." which is exactly what I said. But here it comes the ironic part, according to the history, the spoiler it's not live right now because YOU reformulate it, making this whole conversation pointless. As it is now it seems correct to me, using a general tone without mentioning specific things. I'm not going to reply again, have a good day. JJJAGUAR (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: His comment did not concern the spoilers or the fullness of the description of the manga reception. He considered that the description was too detailed and as you yourself admitted, I rewrote it in a more general sense. But I'm glad the question was resolved. Good luck.Solaire the knight (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)