Talk:Shio Satō
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarification needed edit
Hi,
i'm jury rigging the bibliography and i'm still puzzled over PF Comics or PF Big Comics terms. If it's the collection of imprint then this information is unnecessary what matter is first print: Year, Magazine where it serialized before and Publisher. --KrebMarkt 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Refs dump edit
Matt Thorn --KrebMarkt 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What's going on here? edit
I fixed the age of death (which should be 57--the source cited is wrong), then somebody reverted it, and I posted an explanation...but that whole discussion has disappeared. Was it all in my head? I'll explain again. Satoh's date of birth is December 6, 1952. There are any number of sources for the date. Just Google it in Japanese. The first and most thorough article I read on her death (in Japanese) said 享年59歳. This refers to the old way of counting age, in which an infant was considered 1 year of age at birth. Furthermore, 享年 refers to the span of calender years in which a person existed, so Satoh's 享年 would cover the years 1951 (when she was conceived) to 2010 (when she died)--thus, 59 years. Subsequent, abridged articles mistakenly said said she was 59 years of age at death. One even gave the right year of birth (1952) but the wrong age of death (59). This is just sloppy journalism. Her actual age at death was 57 years. Just do the math. As far as I can tell, the year given for her birth in the current version--1950--was fabricated to match the mistaken age of death. I knew Satoh personally. I translated her story "Changeling" for Viz some 15 years ago. I know what I'm talking about. Since the person who did the revert specifically told me to not change it without discussion, here I am (again). Now I wonder if this post will magically disappear like my last. (Yes, I'm annoyed.) Matt Thorn (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry for the mistake, and that the discussion about it seems to have been eaten alive. Thank you for fixing the mistake and explaining why it's wrong, hopefully that can help in the face of sloppy reporting. --Malkinann (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry and thanks for the correction. I guess i should have kept this article in my watch list. --KrebMarkt 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)