Talk:Life With Monstergirls
From 1d4chan
I'm not sure if this deserves a page of its own. Monstergirls may be a part of /tg/, but it would be much more efficient if it was just added as part of an "Approved Manga" page instead. We have Approved anime and Approved Television, so why should this be the sole exception to the rule? Besides, given that every harem comedy known to man follows the exact same plot I doubt anyone would need a summary of said plot.--Newerfag (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just expanded it in response to a request for help. --71.226.100.101 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree with that logic. There's no reason for every character who sneezed in the 40k universe to have a page alongside every fandex and quest thread either. If it is related to the /tg/ culture or traditional games, it ought to have a page. Not to mention it's odd to be choosy now. There's a Warcraft page, nothing about the Warcraft RPG for example. No reason to limit the page size either. --Thannak (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds more like a shortcoming of the Warcraft page rather than a justification for this one.
- But apart from the obvious (i.e. the presence of monstergirls), is it even related to /tg/? I haven't seen even a single thread pertaining to the manga on /tg/, and as far as I know nobody's shown any interest in homebrewing an RPG based on its setting. We're going to have to set limits somewhere, otherwise you're basically admitting that "/tg/ culture" is a completely arbitrary category. Besides, I still don't understand why this couldn't simply remain on the main Monstergirl page as it has for some time now. It's the exact same information presented in the exact same manner, with nothing gained from having its own page.--Newerfag (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree with that logic. There's no reason for every character who sneezed in the 40k universe to have a page alongside every fandex and quest thread either. If it is related to the /tg/ culture or traditional games, it ought to have a page. Not to mention it's odd to be choosy now. There's a Warcraft page, nothing about the Warcraft RPG for example. No reason to limit the page size either. --Thannak (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So let me get this out of your thick skulls. Monstergirls is, and will always be /tg/ Relevant purely for being monstergirls. While it won't get it's own dedicated topic on the board, every last one of the pictures on this page have been talked about and discussed(Favorably mind you) on /tg/. If you want to delete this page, I can and will fight you on it, because it is an important part of /tg/s culture. Evilexecutive (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Be that as it may and regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with how 'beloved' Monster Musume is, why does it deserve it's own page that has nothing remotely /tg/ relevant on it?
- Perhaps a redirect for "Horse Pussy", "Spider Epigynum", "Snake Cloaca", and "Chicken Cloaca". Just that meme alone warrants a page. --Thannak (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- They would be a stub at most, and for the sake of wiki clarity, I'd rather keep stubs to a minimum. Upload the Monstergirl memes as images, and put links on their description to the Life With Monstergirls page, while also giving them a small bit of description. That'll help keep it clean. Evilexecutive (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, a proper redirect like I started making yesterday. That's why Slaanesh's now brings you to the Slaanesh page, so you don't have the shitty looking Slaanesh's or have to punch in Slaanesh's. So the Daily page is the page for those memes, regardless of what you put in as the search. --Thannak (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that monstergirls in a general sense are /tg/ relevant, but the key phrase there is in a general sense. A specific anime/manga about them, especially one which has no homebrew ruleset, RPG tie-ins, or anything else to connect it to /tg/ beyond a handful of forced memes that are far more common on /a/, /d/ and /jp/ than on /tg/, is not in itself relevant. At best, it's /a/-related first, /e/-related second (since it's ecchi), and /tg/-related as a distant third.
- I've said it dozens of times, in the Main Page discussion and elsewhere if you want to keep the page, just explain why the show or whatever is relevant to /tg/ beyond "because monstergirls and memes". And nothing else- if people wanted a summary of the show or the manga, they'd be using Wikipedia instead.--Newerfag (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I can't really come up with any other reasons for this being here, besides that it's Monstergirls(Which are always /tg/ Relevant), and that /tg/ made, and still uses the memes from the show. Yes I have seen it being discussed on /tg/, and yes I do still see people posting about it(Albeit not as commonly as other things). That being said, your reasons for getting it deleted aren't solid, and neither are the reasons for keeping it.Evilexecutive (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know I sound like a broken record, but I must continue asking why pages like X-Com and TES which are also discussed but are 100% unrelated to a tabletop game exist while other things are brought into question on similar grounds. Daily Life is brought up in many /tg/ threads all the time, in particular Centorea images with one 100% guarenteed to be "Horse Pussy" invariably if Centaurs are mentioned. That alone as a very common meme warrants a page explaining the origin and context. --Thannak (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Allow me to quote from from a main page discussion on the matter: "I think Firefly and Serenity make a great example of doing it right. The show is quite relevant to the people of /tg/, we have references to it all over the wiki, but ultimately it's a TV show. The Serenity page is just for the RPG of the same name, and the Firefly page didn't exist until I made it a few days ago, just for the board game. Compare/contrast Star Trek with 41k of text about the series, followed by 3k of text for the games... followed by another 6k of text for skub about the new movies. Or Doctor Who, which isn't as egregious, but still is mostly about the show. That said, I rather enjoyed both those articles. I just think they need more focus on their games, even if it's just to put the game content up first or something. If a non-tg media doesn't have any /tg/ attached to it, then it probably shouldn't be here." I get the feeling HK wasn't talking about memes when he wrote that.
- In short, the article needs to be redone to explicitly play up the /tg/ aspects, and nothing else. That means the plot summary and whatnot can go, leaving behind only what genuinely matters. And I might note that TES has its Warhammer conversion homebrew, and XCOM just so happens to have an official board game, which is more than what can be said for this. Granted, those two pages should also focus more on the /tg/ aspects to them, but you can't use them as an excuse for something with even less relevance to be here. So instead of protesting, show how it's relevant to /tg/ instead of bogging it down with irrelevant details. Or better yet, homebrew something based on the anime/manga so a direct association with /tg/ can be made instead of an indirect one. --Newerfag (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Allow me to offer a counter-point; this page explains a meme rather than the background of a game (much like the various and assorted unnecessary "Heresy" pages), hence the category I placed it in. Also, this list. http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Category:Not_related --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Counter-counter-point: Why should simple explanation of a meme's origin require an entire plot summary of the show, all the fluff about the characters, and so on? Just explain the memes themselves. And only the memes. And nowadays, most people would agree none of the pages in the category you linked should have been created in the first place, so don't use them as an excuse either.
- Allow me to offer a counter-point; this page explains a meme rather than the background of a game (much like the various and assorted unnecessary "Heresy" pages), hence the category I placed it in. Also, this list. http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Category:Not_related --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- In short, the article needs to be redone to explicitly play up the /tg/ aspects, and nothing else. That means the plot summary and whatnot can go, leaving behind only what genuinely matters. And I might note that TES has its Warhammer conversion homebrew, and XCOM just so happens to have an official board game, which is more than what can be said for this. Granted, those two pages should also focus more on the /tg/ aspects to them, but you can't use them as an excuse for something with even less relevance to be here. So instead of protesting, show how it's relevant to /tg/ instead of bogging it down with irrelevant details. Or better yet, homebrew something based on the anime/manga so a direct association with /tg/ can be made instead of an indirect one. --Newerfag (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you like the show, but you have to resist the urge to gush about shows you like simply because you like them. --Newerfag (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unlike those things, this is discussed with regularity. Anytime its posted, someone asks for sauce. When given, someone asks what it is and where to find it, and thus a summary of something discussed and thus relevant to board culture is fitting. Page length doesn't factor into relevancy, and a complete summary of TES is likewise not required for the assorted TES Quests. Nor Warcraft, especially since the Warcraft RPG is barely mentioned. A full explanation ought to be presented on any relevant topic, rather than just the tl;dr version. --Thannak (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- And the full explanation can sometimes be the same as the tl;dr version. Check what I've done- it gives everything worth knowing about, nothing more, nothing less. The links to the anime/manga itself are there for those who want to learn more, as are the pictures regarding the memes. That's all it needs, anything else is superfluous. And lest you consider me a hypocrite, I've given the TES page the same treatment, which quite frankly it needed very badly indeed.--Newerfag (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would actually strongly argue against the summarization of ANY page, as part of the draw of 1d4 is analysis and completeness. There is no page where shortening is necessary. It doesn't make them better in any way whatsoever. --Thannak (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's a point where "analysis and completeness" becomes needless verbosity and information overload, and most of what was on those pages didn't even discuss the /tg/ aspects of its subjects at all.
- I would actually strongly argue against the summarization of ANY page, as part of the draw of 1d4 is analysis and completeness. There is no page where shortening is necessary. It doesn't make them better in any way whatsoever. --Thannak (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- And the full explanation can sometimes be the same as the tl;dr version. Check what I've done- it gives everything worth knowing about, nothing more, nothing less. The links to the anime/manga itself are there for those who want to learn more, as are the pictures regarding the memes. That's all it needs, anything else is superfluous. And lest you consider me a hypocrite, I've given the TES page the same treatment, which quite frankly it needed very badly indeed.--Newerfag (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unlike those things, this is discussed with regularity. Anytime its posted, someone asks for sauce. When given, someone asks what it is and where to find it, and thus a summary of something discussed and thus relevant to board culture is fitting. Page length doesn't factor into relevancy, and a complete summary of TES is likewise not required for the assorted TES Quests. Nor Warcraft, especially since the Warcraft RPG is barely mentioned. A full explanation ought to be presented on any relevant topic, rather than just the tl;dr version. --Thannak (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you like the show, but you have to resist the urge to gush about shows you like simply because you like them. --Newerfag (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't you just say that page length has nothing to do with relevancy? If so, then why object to shortening of pages that were arguably made better by said shortening? People who look up TES here want to know what the homebrews made are, not a full history of the games, their receptions, and so on. But all of this is irrelevant to this specific article now, so bring it onto the talk page I linked earlier and I will be willing to continue this discussion further. --Newerfag (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, going by your logic there's one course of action; trim every article to a few paragraphs (waiting eagerly to see what you do to Warhammer 40,000 and its unending wall of text), and delete every page not strictly related to memes, quest threads, and games (meaning most of the articles on this site). Either way, you're going to be busy. Furthermore I've not seen a justified argument against going into detail on topics, since clearly it is /tg/ related and there's no complaints on every Warhammer 40k character and their homebrewed grandmother having an extensive page. Furthermore, this is the /tg/ wiki not the homebrew wiki. Chopping the TES page to nothing because it isn't one guy's forgotten homebrew from three years ago read only a few hundred times is poor logic. --Thannak (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Take it to this page, where we might actually get an outside opinion on these matters since it's clearly not about a single article now. It's obvious neither of us are going to convince the other within this page and that it is something to be determined by the wiki as a whole. --Newerfag (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- To the fourteenth ; I salute thee. You guys are getting awfully annoying now, and at this point it's just getting too personal. Look, I don't like the idea of censoring anything here, but you're getting pretty ridiculous. I think it's fine to trim down the article to keep it clean, but removing some 99% of it to reduce it to a stub is entirely too much. What's not okay is you turning this into a personal grudge attack on another contributer. Please cease this immediately, else I'll be bringing wikifag into the argument, Or worse, posting on 4chan itself about thisEvilexecutive (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Take it to this page, where we might actually get an outside opinion on these matters since it's clearly not about a single article now. It's obvious neither of us are going to convince the other within this page and that it is something to be determined by the wiki as a whole. --Newerfag (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, going by your logic there's one course of action; trim every article to a few paragraphs (waiting eagerly to see what you do to Warhammer 40,000 and its unending wall of text), and delete every page not strictly related to memes, quest threads, and games (meaning most of the articles on this site). Either way, you're going to be busy. Furthermore I've not seen a justified argument against going into detail on topics, since clearly it is /tg/ related and there's no complaints on every Warhammer 40k character and their homebrewed grandmother having an extensive page. Furthermore, this is the /tg/ wiki not the homebrew wiki. Chopping the TES page to nothing because it isn't one guy's forgotten homebrew from three years ago read only a few hundred times is poor logic. --Thannak (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't you just say that page length has nothing to do with relevancy? If so, then why object to shortening of pages that were arguably made better by said shortening? People who look up TES here want to know what the homebrews made are, not a full history of the games, their receptions, and so on. But all of this is irrelevant to this specific article now, so bring it onto the talk page I linked earlier and I will be willing to continue this discussion further. --Newerfag (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, fine. I've re-expanded the page within reasonable limits and will continue trying to strike a balance between too little detail and too much detail. If you or Thannak wishes to continue our discussion, my offer to take it to the main page stands. It's something that needed to be addressed for a long time to begin with. --Newerfag (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe this would be relevant, before you start another flamewar.[edit]
- "To weigh in, my specific wording about the sort of content I primarily intended the site to be used for is "relevant to /tg/", as can be seen on the main page, and I have previously stated (although I no longer remember where exactly) that this criterion is fairly loose and evidence of even tangential relation is enough to justify an article's presence, which can be as simple as "a show that was discussed on /tg/ a lot". To take the Touhou example, love it or hate it, it came up on /tg/ frequently, and not just (although probably usually) because of Touhoufag. I am not overly concerned if someone wants to write in detail about a subject which has only a tangential /tg/ relation (like the lore of Warcraft) - I care more about it being written well, and particularly about making sure the article opens with a good summary which would explain to the casual browser why the subject is discussed here if it is not obvious. You don't need to pare an article down to only the "strictly relevant" information, but do structure it so that you don't need to read several thousand words of rambling to get the gist." --Wikifag (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Allegations of Censorship[edit]
I understand noting the censorship in the broadcast anime, but is there really censorship in the Seven Seas English translation release of the manga? Obviously criticism of things is more than welcome on /tg/ (and by extension 1d4chan), but I think we aught to have hard proof of this before we go around posting it. I only ask because I own the manga and haven't seen visual disparity between the tankobons and the scanlations.
I'm removing the allegations until we get some proof. Feel free to roll back my edit when we see pics, because otherwise it didn't happen. --FlintTD (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- See http://sevenseasentertainment.tumblr.com/post/143136647045/for-chapter-33-in-volume-8-of-monster-musume-why for proofs. There was a big shitshow on /monster/ about it because they thought it was done by Seven Seas, until their PR guys clarified on social media that they were simply played the hand they were dealt. OriginalPrankster (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
