[006]
188.63.59.57
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
FandomPreferredCouple:
*** Saint Seiya has SO many yaoi couples that is actually hard to enumerate all of them...i can add Shun/Sorrento,Hyoga/Camus,Ikki/Shun (incest!),Saga/Kanon (again!),Mu/Aldebaran,Ikki/Shaka,etc etc etc. In fact since Saint Seiya was so popularized in Europe and Latin America in the early internet times (and also when the occidentals anime fans begin to gather in there), one of the animes (if not the most) with more yaoi fanfictions was Saint Seiya (and most popular yaoi writers ever begun their \
*** Saint Seiya has SO many yaoi couples that is actually hard to enumerate all of them...i can add Shun/Sorrento,Hyoga/Camus,Ikki/Shun (incest!),Saga/Kanon (again!),Mu/Aldebaran,Ikki/Shaka,etc etc etc. In fact since Saint Seiya was so popularized in Europe and Latin America in the early internet times (and also when the occidentals anime fans begin to gather in there), one of the animes (if not the most) with more yaoi fanfictions was Saint Seiya (and most popular yaoi writers ever begun their \
to:
FanPreferredCouple:
*** Saint Seiya has SO many yaoi couples that is actually hard to enumerate all of them...i can add Shun/Sorrento,Hyoga/Camus,Ikki/Shun (incest!),Saga/Kanon (again!),Mu/Aldebaran,Ikki/Shaka,etc etc etc. In fact since Saint Seiya was so popularized in Europe and Latin America in the early internet times (and also when the occidentals anime fans begin to gather in there), one of the animes (if not the most) with more yaoi fanfictions was Saint Seiya (and most popular yaoi writers ever begun their \\\"careers\\\" with it also).
That example needs to be split up before it can go back.
*** Saint Seiya has SO many yaoi couples that is actually hard to enumerate all of them...i can add Shun/Sorrento,Hyoga/Camus,Ikki/Shun (incest!),Saga/Kanon (again!),Mu/Aldebaran,Ikki/Shaka,etc etc etc. In fact since Saint Seiya was so popularized in Europe and Latin America in the early internet times (and also when the occidentals anime fans begin to gather in there), one of the animes (if not the most) with more yaoi fanfictions was Saint Seiya (and most popular yaoi writers ever begun their \\\"careers\\\" with it also).
That example needs to be split up before it can go back.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Also, we\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \
to:
Also, we\\\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \\\"half-remembrances\\\", a lot of these criticisms about how the 2003 series is supposedly \\\"anti-feminist\\\" are based on wrong information - complaining about things that didn\\\'t actually happen in the series, leaving out things that did happen that would disprove their arguments, and so on.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, rather than allowing one person to bias everything toward their particular, highly-individual take on the series. Especially if it\\\'s a contentious topic where ranting about it violates RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. I\\\'ve seen this as a problem on YMMV pages for other volatile fandoms, too, and it seems to be what the person who I mentioned above is doing, when the things s/he is adding aren\\\'t just outright incorrect.)
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, rather than allowing one person to bias everything toward their particular, highly-individual take on the series. Especially if it\\\'s a contentious topic where ranting about it violates RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. I\\\'ve seen this as a problem on YMMV pages for other volatile fandoms, too, and it seems to be what the person who I mentioned above is doing, when the things s/he is adding aren\\\'t just outright incorrect.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Also, we\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \
to:
Also, we\\\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \\\"half-remembrances\\\", a lot of these criticisms about how the 2003 series is supposedly \\\"anti-feminist\\\" are based on wrong information - complaining about things that didn\\\'t actually happen in the series, leaving out things that did happen that would disprove their arguments, and so on.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, rather than allowing one person to bias everything toward their particular, highly-individual take on the series. Especially if it\\\'s a contentious topic where ranting about it violates RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. I\\\'ve seen this as a problem on YMMV pages for other volatile fandoms.)
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, rather than allowing one person to bias everything toward their particular, highly-individual take on the series. Especially if it\\\'s a contentious topic where ranting about it violates RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. I\\\'ve seen this as a problem on YMMV pages for other volatile fandoms.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Also, we\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \
to:
Also, we\\\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \\\"half-remembrances\\\", a lot of these criticisms about how the 2003 series is supposedly \\\"anti-feminist\\\" are based on wrong information - complaining about things that didn\\\'t actually happen in the series, leaving out things that did happen that would disprove their arguments, and so on.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, and allowing individual opinions makes it too easy for someone to turn the YMMV page into a place for their SingleIssueWonk rant when that would be more appropriate for the forums.)
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; since TVT is a reference, it should reflect what are frequent impressions - positive or negative - that some fans have about the series, and allowing individual opinions makes it too easy for someone to turn the YMMV page into a place for their SingleIssueWonk rant when that would be more appropriate for the forums.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Also, we\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \
to:
Also, we\\\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \\\"half-remembrances\\\", a lot of these criticisms about how the 2003 series is supposedly \\\"anti-feminist\\\" are based on wrong information - complaining about things that didn\\\'t actually happen in the series, leaving out things that did happen that would disprove their arguments, and so on.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; it\\\'s very easy for one viewer to gush about or nitpick a work they really love or hate, but since TVT is used as a reference, it should reflect common subjective opinions, even on the YMMV page. Individual impressions seem like something more appropriate for the forums.)
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this. (Personally, I like that new rule; it\\\'s very easy for one viewer to gush about or nitpick a work they really love or hate, but since TVT is used as a reference, it should reflect common subjective opinions, even on the YMMV page. Individual impressions seem like something more appropriate for the forums.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Also, we\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \
to:
Also, we\\\'re also allowed to remove things that are factually wrong about the work, correct? Because as I was trying to indicate with the note about them being based on \\\"half-remembrances\\\", a lot of these criticisms about how the 2003 series is supposedly \\\"anti-feminist\\\" are based on wrong information - complaining about things that didn\\\'t actually happen in the series, leaving out things that did happen that would disprove their arguments, and so on.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this.
Also, I\\\'d like the clarification amarielah asked for as well. From my experience on other YMMV pages, there seems to be a new rule that UnfortunateImplications examples in particular need to be something that is a common impression viewers have, not just one person\\\'s opinion, and need an outside citation to show this.
