Editing User talk:Braiam (section)

== OreImo v12c02 ==

Doumo, doumo, konnichiwa...

Your fixes to [[Ore_no_Imōto_ga_Konna_ni_Kawaii_Wake_ga_Nai:Volume_12_Chapter_2|OreImo v12c02]] w/ regard to the misc. accidental wiki-markup missed before, et cetera, are much appreciated! However, I was wondering whether the [[Talk:Ore_no_Imōto_ga_Konna_ni_Kawaii_Wake_ga_Nai:Volume_12_Chapter_2|removal of certain italics]] was intentional?

I realize they can look a lot like unbalanced double quotes in the edit-view if they're done with doubled-up single-quotes (<nowiki>''</nowiki>''italics''<nowiki>''</nowiki>) rather than HTML (&lt;i>''italics!''&lt;/i>), so I thought I'd see if that was the case. The last thing I want to start is a fight, so I figured it'd be best to check rather than assuming one way or the other and reverting those particular changes.

That aside, thanks for staying vigilant with edits! Every positive contribution helps make the TLs that much better for the readers!

Cheers, -[[User:Shift|shift]] ([[User talk:Shift|talk]]) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (CDT)

:Yeah, for my point of view, they were more trailing quotes than attempts of using italics, as you can see only two single-quotes at the start of the line, instead both start and end, so I took them as mistake since they didn't appear to fit as murmur from Kyosuke and in same chapter line 4 (actually 12-something but I'm not going to count) translator used 'Sentence' for internal troughs/flashback, and that didn't looks like when I read the text and since formatting of internal troughs don't have defined rule in the guidelines I just went and deleted em. About the use of HTML syntax for the wiki, I'm rather against it for 3 reasons:
# This is a wiki, not a HTML page, hence if it has a proper syntax, why reinvent the wheel?
# I have 3 keys less to press when using single-quotes marks (not counting that for <> I have to use Shift too),
# The source page looks cleaner that way.
# The only advantage that has the HTML is for large chunk of text where single quotes is a hassle to use.
# It uses less bandwidth/disk space since it only uses 32 bits of data.
:Well, I said 3... but who cares about what I say. I will normalize the use of italics for two single-quote marks where I see fit in any case.

::I generally prefer wiki-markup to html-markup on the wiki, as well—except perhaps in cases where ''multi-line'' markup is necessitated (#4 on your list), if only because of the fact that it's much harder to miss an un-closed HTML tag than it is to forget to italicize a line at the end. Space concerns I won't address, except to say that, from a programmer's perspective, in this modern age clarity is often of greater (albeit subjective) value than brevity. As I said, I don't really disagree with the choice of wiki-markup over HTML markup, so there's really nothing to "argue" there.

::: I know from where you come as I had wrote/figure out code in Python, Javascript, HTML, and played around fixing (was more like hammering my way through) PHP where I didn't know what the heck was happening. (I still have a piece of over 2000 lines of JS that I still don't know how it works

::::Haha, yeah. Programming can be like that. But no worries, judging by the "<ruby><rb>launch</rb><rp>(</rp><rt>public beta</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>, emergency bugfix, repeat" cycle common with this past generation's games, there are corporate giants who don't understand thousands if not millions of their own lines of code.

::Fun fact: The lack of trailing single-quote pairs is apparently by design, meaning they aren't necessary for lines that are entirely of a single style. Even the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup#Format wikipedia wiki-markup help] page mentions that the formatting marks only work on a single line. My guess is that it's to prevent exactly the issue one comes across when forgetting to close tags in HTML. Rarely does one honestly need to italicize multiple paragraphs of text at a time, in English, anyway. LNs at least seem to utilize much, much shorter "paragraphs", so sometimes multi-line formatting is needed for comparatively "large" blocks of internal monologue (more than a single thought).

:::Yeah, I was reading those looking how the trailing quotes worked about as once I tried to <nowiki>''Paragraph 1 / br / br / Paragraph 2''</nowiki> and didn't work (figures).

::The thought/flashback thing (e.g., your "Sentence" ref.) is actually most likely due to the source text: occasionally the author uses 『』 style Japanese "double-quotes" (so to speak) to delineate flashback quotes or set-off otherwise significant lines. ''Actual'' thoughts aren't always so clearly marked off, and I suspect some of them are actually discretionary designations based on how the words are presented in the original text. E.g. something like "Ah, I get it already, shut up!" would seem more likely to be a thought than narration, and thus in the "TL" (EN -> EN, does it get any easier!) it might be presented as ''Ah, I get it already, shut up!''

::The vast majority of narration is done from the past-tense first person perspective of Kyousuke, anyway, which can make it even more difficult to tell where Kyousuke is "recalling" something as a narrator and where he is "commenting" on it as a participant. My interpretation, anyway. I'm not the TL so I can only guess how it affects the TLs, past and present. I just reference the text occasionally to maintain consistency during edits, and that's the impression I've gotten thus far.

:::For me is just annoying having to check the format (the last thing I do when writing a text anyways) and I try to interpret the point of view while reading in any case, so at least for me the formatting isn't important.

::Anyway, I completely understand the potential for confusion—I've accidentally removed a few italic markups myself before realizing in the preview that the formatting was changed and the quotes didn't appear in the actual rendered page. I'm taking your response as go ahead to re-introduce those particular italics to the text, then? -[[User:Shift|shift]] ([[User talk:Shift|talk]]) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (CDT)

::Re:Re: Yeah, I actually watch any page I've edited for at least a few days to make sure there isn't any fallout or follow up, as applicable. It's just -so- much easier to follow a conversation that's on a single page. XD -[[User:Shift|shift]] ([[User talk:Shift|talk]])

:::Just submitting when you posted your response. --[[User:Braiam|Braiam]] ([[User talk:Braiam#top|talk]]) 15:48, 1 July 2013 (CDT)

::::Yep, B-T notified me of the edit already. Thanks a bunch for your work! -[[User:Shift|shift]] ([[User talk:Shift|talk]]) 15:59, 1 July 2013 (CDT)