Talk:List of Oh My Goddess! episodes/Archive 1

Too many images

I feel there may be too many images on this page. Even on DSL it takes a little while to load: anyone with dial-up will likely be unable to load this page in reasonable time. Elric of Grans 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I merely had taken List of Star Trek: TNG episodes as an example. It has far many more images. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Title capilisation

There is inconsistant capitalisation in the titles: it makes it a little messy to read. This would be easy enough to standardise, but what would be the best way? Wikipedia recommends capitalisation of only the first word and any subsequent proper nouns for the titles of articles (which each of these are, if you follow the link); I would extend this to also including the first word of a new sentance, for our purposes here. We could, however, keep capitalisation across the board, but come to some agreement as to which types of words are (not) capitalised. The former would keep things closer to Wiki guidelines, while the latter would probably be more aesthetically pleasing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elric of Grans (talk • contribs) .

Hmmm... I dont know. Possible, why not create redirects to these titles? Likely the titles will change withofficial dub releases. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the title changes: it would be best to wait and see what the official titles are for the TV series. We already have the official ones for the OVAs, however, so can do something with them now. I think redirects on 'and' vs 'And' or whatnot are pedantic, so we should probably just agree to one standard and move them all to it. I can do the move as I add content to them, but need to know which standard to use. Elric of Grans 04:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

They are capitalised in the official versions tho. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that is wrong: I am merely pointing out that it is inconsistent. Some use one set of rules, others use another. I feel it would just look a little better if we standardised them all to one set. It is a very minor issue, but would make everything look a little cleaner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elric of Grans (talk • contribs) .

I really see it as a waiste of time since when someone types it either way they will see the right page. I do not object if you "fix" tens of pages, I just am stating its not worth the effort :). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

That looks a lot better, image-wise! It is probably worth noting that the US release will likely be a little different (more episodes per DVD, and possibly different DVD covers), but we can update that as we go along. If you are changing to that style, then adding in the Mini-Goddess episodes to this page would not be so bad either. It will be a while before I get up to them, however, so they will either be low on content or someone else will need to fill them in. I would be opposed to each Mini-Goddess episode having an article of its own, but perhaps one article per 4 episode, or per DVD, would be OK. Elric of Grans 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC there is only one DVD the entier mini-serries fit into... I dont know how to do the mini serries since it is a completely diferent entitiy, perhaps a seperate list or maybe in here. I just dont know. I do not have access to the list of mini serrries eposides + air date + kanji + romanji etc... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I linked you to a list of (English) episode titles and (Japanese) air dates at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Staff and Cast. The Japanese titles would take a little searching, but I could probably find them. As for sorting... I am at a bit of a loss there. It is not available in my country, so I do not know anything about how the English release is sorted. Elric of Grans 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

3 images are from the US dvd releases. Others are from the official AMG website. I do not know how many episodes per dvd it will be. I suspect it will be 3 per dvd... :/ --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The normal in English releases (at the moment) is five DVDs of four episodes and two of three, however, some will do two DVDs of five episodes and four of four. Elric of Grans 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to have more images I think its ok to stick with japanese covers then :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so I personally feel it would be better to use the English covers, and so the English episodes/disc. More images does not a better list make: this list should be about content, not images, so having superflous images, placed arbritrarially amongst the list, seems like a poor decission. If you would like to go with the US ordering, I read in Newtype USA that disc one contains the first five episodes. Elric of Grans 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

'US' does not dominate wikipedia. I feel the japanese covers are more approporate as after all the serries were produced in Japan. The arbitrary ordering of the DVD's is based on the official japanese website of the serries. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Right on, Cool Cat! With no offence to Americans, but the US isn't the be end all of the world. With the current problems with the english dub in terms of distibation i feel it would be better that Japanese covers are used. That way the article doesn't risk getting biased. -Dynamo_ace Talk

True however I have taken the liberty to upload region two dvd covers, we need to find a smart way to put both regional releases to the article. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A possible comprimise, I used the DVD covers for region 1 on the actual Ah! My Goddess and Oh My Goddess!. Better? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Region 1:

• 
• 
• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 03 (region 1).png

Region 2:

• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 01.png
• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 02.png
• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 03.png
• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 04.png
• File:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 05.png
• 
• 
• 
• 

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Do you guys not want this to pass. I know you like this page Elric of Grans. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This list has seen far too much work to not pass, so i've removed many of the smaller images, they were already hard to see, and will help to assuage mine and many others issues with the pages fair use claims -AKMask 12:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry for my perhaps rude comments on the FLC page, I am kinda stressed about this page not reciving the FL as fast as it perhaps should :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, no worries at all... with those tiny images being my main reason to oppose now gone, im changing my vote. AKMask 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I feel it is a little early to be thinking about a Featured List: you made the request only hours after starting the page. Over the next few months, as the US releases come out, the episode titles are sure to change, and we will also soon have more information on the OVA episodes. Given the cover for them, however, it is obvious which story they are based on. Likely sometime before series two begins this will probably make a good candidate, but I feel it is a little early. Besides, on the FLC page is says that all images should have captions. A very small, easy to correct point, but it shows that this page has not been compared with the criteria yet. Elric of Grans 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In a few hours of creation the page had its current form (I constructred this on my sandbox). All Images do have captions. :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The page will never be complete so long as it is ongoing (which I sincerely hope is many many seasons). Hence waiting several months for all episodes to air in the states is not really necesarry in my POV. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Images need fair use Rationales

For example

   == Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
    This image, picture-fair-use.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
    # it is a low resolution copy of a DVD cover;
    # it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the DVD album in any way;
    # copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the DVD artwork on another DVD;
    # the image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist, [[name]].

I'm not an expert but the the images seem like they may be too large? Perhaps resize them? Discordance 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please dont bother me with copyright paranoia, if you are not satisfied with the standard fair use template for dvd covers used wikipedia wide mention it in the templates talk page. The images apear at a low resolution. Much smaller than they appear on amazon.com. Unless TBS complains about the fair-use rationales we present, I do not believe there are any issues here. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove images or lose featured list status

There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones

There is a discussion concerning the images on this list at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose such a merger. There is far too much room for improvement in these articles. -- Cat ^chi? 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked over WP:EPISODE? If not, please read over it and address how the episodes can contain the information listed there. TTN 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by TTN (overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes) I'm firmly in favour of the merger for the tagged episodes of this cartoon. ShizuokaSensei 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a cartoon, it is an manga first and then an anime. Big difference.

I consider articles such as You're a Goddess? to contain enough material to disqualify as stubs. I do not consider their coverage as "excess", it is half a page summary of a full 24 minute episode. There are articles such as Broken Bow (Enterprise) that contain plot material on an act by act basis.

Also Wikipedia:Television episodes is merely a guideline not a policy. It should be treated as a guideline not a policy. You ought to have reasons beyond "it is in the guideline".

I also ask you, how is removing content rather than expanding the articles in question giving better coverage to the topic in question? Summarizing a show that lasted over 5 seasons (1 ova, 2 mini episodes, 2 recent anime) and a movie to few broken sentences isn't to the benefit to the encyclopedia.

The merge suggestion is giving over 1100 (18.5 hours) minute portion of the show a lesser coverage than an average movie.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a read of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Your suggestion of a merge is in conflict with that. -- Cat ^chi? 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon/animation/manga. Define it how you like; I'm not going to get into a dispute over the semantics of moving image classification with a rabid animation fan. The stand-out line from the notability guidelines for television episodes page would be Create pages for outstanding episodes. Aside from the already highlighted problems of overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes (not to mention what is overall an unquestionably poor standard of prose), I'm unaware how any of the episodes can be considered oustanding. Remember, we're talking about how the episode is outstanding in an out-of-universe context; ie: it's impact on the real world. Belldandy doing such and such to save the day at the last minute can never be considered outstanding, regardless of how exciting / life changing it may be to you personally. ShizuokaSensei 12:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if independence day or any other fictional work has any outstanding significance with that logic. After all Die Hard is merely an action movie with a hero saving the day in the last minute. Or take Hamlet for example, it is merely a collective killing in the last scene. Like it or not Anime/Manga is an important part of our culture. So the blanket argument you have there is flawed.

I agree that there is a lot of room for work with these articles. The plot summary in most of these articles isn't even that detailed. So fair use isn't an issue. The articles contain not a whole lot of (if any) trivia. I do not recall any of these articles containing quotes. I am uncertain what your rationale is aimed at. "It is in policy" or even "Jimbo said so" is a poor way to construct an argument. Please have an argument more than linking me to a few guidelines.

Have you watched the show in question? Do you realize this particular manga is among the most significant and longest running ones? This particular Manga is the flagship of its genre which started as a gag. Manga normally lasts a few years - often they do not even last a year. This one is ongoing since 1988. It is older than some wikipedians. People keep buying merchandise for it for the past 19.9 ~ 20 years (or else it would be canceled). Thats nearly two decades. So there is no question about the significance of the Manga/Anime in question.

Also, there is news that something "big" is supposed to happen during the 20'th anniversary of the show (either 25 August or 25 September) so there will be a significant amount of info with that.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the metric for outstanding? -- Cat ^chi? 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point and misunderstood my argument. Noone is suggesting that anime lacks cultural significance, nor are they suggesting that this particular anime is irrelevant. It certainly is relevant, and more than warrents articles for each season/format etc. The point of this discussion is whether individual episodes are notable enough to be considered encyclopedic in an out-of-universe conext and therefore derserve seperate articles. The simple answer would be No, and no amount of detailed plot walk-throughs or discussion of the plot can alter this. Drawing parallels to Die Hard is a patently false analogy. Look at the Die Hard article and you'll see more than half of it focuses on production details and the global reception / influence of the film. Finally, the idea that the encylopedic worth of individual episodes of this TV show are in some way analogous to Hamlet... well I'm not ever sure where to start with that one! Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. What will be will be. ShizuokaSensei 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't even prone to a discussion. You ought to check wikipedia policies and guidelines on consensus. A lack of content can be cured by expanding the articles in question, it is not a blanket argument for deletion/mergers. If you desire to "butcher" all episode articles, please come back when you have community consensus to that end. This set of articles are not you test case to play with. -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indented to save space. Suggesting I'm not willing to discuss the issue is rather confusing. Did you miss where I addressed your points one by one and expressed the reasons behind my opinions (ie: that an article for an individual TV show episode containing little more than a plot walk-through is counter to Wiki guidlines)? It seems you may have, because you have provided no counter arguments and have resorted to accusing of me wanting to "butcher" Wikipedia and to "play with" aritlces. Please try and remain civil. Mud-slinging does nothing to help your credibility. The reason I have no further part to play in this discussion is that you are not providing any convincing counters to the points made by myself and TTN, the editor proposing the condensing of these articles (or the person wanting to play with and butcher these articles as you wish to describe it). ShizuokaSensei 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why I am the target of a civility warning. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this on an episode review page that we have for when more views are needed. TTN 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what is needed here is more time. The show is obviously notable and if other notable shows are looked at, there are individual articles for each episode. What these particular articles need are secondary sources on production, ratings, critical reception, awards etc. From what I've seen these sources exist, but they're in Japanese. Therefore, I feel that if White Cat were to work with a Japanese speaker, perhaps a member of WP:JAPAN then the articles could be sourced effectively. If after this, some articles remained merely as plot summaries, then they could be redirected to the list. After all, these articles are not doing any harm by being here. --Farosdaughter 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not having a deadline is not an excuse to let these articles exist indefinitely. The show itself is notable, but the individual episodes themselves are not. The Simpson episodes are notable; thus they qualify as their own article. Allowing an undefined time for these to be sourced is not a good idea. Any time people claim "Oh it's notable, just give us time! We'll fix it up! You'll see!" And people say "Ok.", more often than not a month later it's still in the sorry state it was originally. If there are sources that assert notability, then after they are merged they can be userfied to fix them. As of now, they do not have the sources. And not paper is the most overused argument in existance, it can be used to qualify anything to be an article. i ^said 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As for plot summaries, they need to be reduced by half (including removal of OR/Fancruft). Just to clarify, Ah! My Goddess: The Movie, which is part of this series, is a film, not just an episode. I agree with TTN that if we don't do the work, they will be redirected soon. If anyone wants to do it, go for it. Also, per Wikiproject Films' style guidelines, please keep the plot about 700 words. Good luck. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I am going to merge most of the episodes, but I need some help in doing so. I've noticed that List of Samurai Champloo episodes 1-12 have detailed plot summaries that are not overly long or excessively detailed. I also need some help on merging and writing summaries for the episodes. That would be very much appreciated. Greg Jones II 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that list and those plot summaries are way too long! The idea is to summarise, not tell the whole story. --Jack Merridew 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for other comments on this issue from Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review. Greg Jones II 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I will really need some help merging these episodes as per TTN's reasons for these episodes above. Any thoughts? Greg Jones II 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that this page covers more than one show, it might make it a bit tight to merge everything to here. Even so, I'd support some form of merge, getting away from the one article-per-episode mindset. I suspect we have general real world information about OMG, and not a lot of things to say per episode, but I will keep an open mind and see what I can find. Since this is anime, someone might want to contact someone who speaks Japanese and see if they can do a quick search for anything that would help these articles (reviews, published episode guides, DVD commentary) (as in, adds real world information, and not just another published summary). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will contact anyone who speaks Japanese for you, Ned Scott (like Nihonjoe or Ganryuu). Besides, just to clarify, the movie version of AMG is just a movie, not really an episode. Greg Jones II 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now contacted this information to Nihonjoe. Greg Jones II 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you want me to find here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about finding any reviews, published episode guides, DVD commentary and anything (As in real world information and not just another published service) as per Ned Scott's reasons. Greg Jones II 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect per TTN. There is nothing in here that satisfies the Episode guideline. If out-of-universe can be established then any of the redirected articles can be recreated. As it stands, no notability is asserted that warrants having individual articles. Eusebeus 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went through all of the OVA "episodes" and the two seasons of the tv show. None of them is much more than plot summary and a fair number of the season 2 articles have a null plot summary — the ultimate stub. The tbs.co.jp links may well back-up factual claims (to Japanese readers) but are hardly an independent source; the links in English to "Open Your Mind" are largely broken and/or missing and are to nothing more than a fan site. I don't see anyway the individual episode articles can be expanded besides the addition of more plot summary (I did like this bit in one of the season two episodes: Talking vegetables make an appearance!); there is only a bit of trivia and I don't believe any quotes — but they could make an appearance if these articles are not dealt with. The OVA articles fail to rise even to the level of "episode" (they're direct to video for fans). I recommend that the OVA and TV show episodes be redirected to the LOE which have sufficient plot summary. The movie article may be able to be improved; I would suggest that interested editors focus on that article. --Jack Merridew 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is affirmative. Greg Jones II 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a military operation. General remarks are unhelpful. If you see a spesific problem with a spesific article, feel free to correct it. If the complaint is that articles have nothing but plot summaries you are welcome to help expand it. Episode articles are not banned on wikipedia so a general opposition simply because these are episode articles is not a productive approach. I did not have a metric when I started writing these articles and would appreciate a little more consideration. -- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The info above, just to clarify, is not a military operation, nor are they general remarks. It is merely a request. I am going to start removing trivia, reducing plot summaries by half and improving all the articles, including the film, in the next couple of days. Greg Jones II 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I also object to a merger, all these episodes establish notability to me for being episodes of Oh My Goddess! OVA. Matthew 14:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

General response to everything above: I see no comments at Talk:You're a Goddess?. I have no metric whatsoever on how a good episode article looks like. Finding the airfield would be much easier if I do not fly blind and have a clue what I am looking for. A general guideline isn't all that helpful. -- Cat ^chi? 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE lists the following as examples of good epiosde articles: "Abyssinia, Henry" (from M*A*S*H), "Pilot (House)" (from House), "Cape Feare" (from The Simpsons) and "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)" (from Lost). All include information about the production of the episode, and its reception by audiences and critics. I don't know much about anime, but I believe that there's a pretty substantial critical apparatus for major anime series like Oh My Goddess. It should be possible to find some production information and reviews from reliable sources. These don't have to be general-audience newspapers; if there's an anime fan magazine which reviews individual episodes, that would do. Of course, it's much easier to find sources for American and British television shows, but someone at the Japanese Wikipedia might be able to help find sources. (It would be interesting to learn whether the Japanese Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of this anime — since I can't read Japanese, I can't tell, but I don't see Japanese interwiki links on the episode pages that exist.) One of these users may be able to help with the Japanese-language side of things; if you have specific questions about how to improve an episode page so it doesn't get turned into a redirect, I'll try to help if I can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think an article improvement drive would a better way to address the problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, but some editors are just fond of deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually strongly agree with WhiteCat and Josiah Rowe that an article improvement drive would be a better way to address the problem. Greg Jones II 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've watched these articles for over a year now, and I've seen at least one of the series. Given the very nature of the show, and the information available to us, the probability of improvement is very low. Let me ask this, what kind of real-world information might these per-episode articles include? How much of this information do we even know to exist? -- Ned Scott 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Real-world information, for example, would be on professional reviews, official websites (on the Tokyo Broadcasting System's official website), reliable sources, anime conventions, professional film reviews and the OVA DVD commentary. Also, plot summaries should have no Original Research/Fancruft and redundancies must be reduced by half. Greg Jones II 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pages linked from here and here may be useful, as may this. Books like [http://www.amazon.com/Anime-Companion-Whats-Japanese-Animation/dp/1880656329/ref=pd_sim_mag_pop_title/105-4363708-3041239 this] may have useful content, as may magazines like Anime Insider and Newtype. I'm not into anime, so I'm not qualified to determine which of these sources are reliable and which aren't — but it does look to me as if reliable sources exist to provide real-world context for these episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, you'll find lots of stuff per-series, but little to nothing that is per-episode, or that would justify such a format. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give the editors of these articles a little more time to check for useful sources before we make a final decision. I know that White Cat is interested in improving the articles, but didn't know what resources were available. I know that you know more about anime than I do, Ned; have you looked for sources that might be used in these episode articles? You say that per-series sources exist but per-episode sources don't; is that based on research, or just a gut feeling? (If you have looked into this, and found nothing, then I apologize — I just want to make sure that we give the interested editors a fair chance to improve the articles.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I have been told that ja:Category:漫画雑誌 or ja:漫画評論 would be a good place to start. -- Cat ^chi? 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, White Cat. Greg Jones II 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, take all the time necessary. While I'd prefer merging and redirecting many of these articles, I am not looking to force the issue. As far as what I personally have found, nothing specific to OMG, but from other anime research I've done, it's generally true. There are exceptions, such as "Going Too Far" from Excel Saga, but even then that doesn't always mean there's enough per-episode info for a separate article. Remember, this isn't just about notability and sources, it's also about the amount of information and how we organize it. Sometimes even when you do have something from the real-world that can be said about an episode, sometimes that same information is better said on a character's page, depending on context. Etc, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted something on ja.chatsubo and am waiting for a response. -- Cat ^chi? 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much is moving forward. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate. We need to move forward as soon as possible taking all the time needed. Greg Jones II 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to trim up the plot section on the movie article. Greg Jones II 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

motion to close

There has been little editing of these articles and they all still fail to establish notability or amount to much more than plot summary. The movie could be an exception, but not in its present state. Absent better sources, these will be redirected soon. --Jack Merridew 10:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to edit them ASAP. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Greg Jones II 13:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the issue on ja.wiki. I am sorry, ja.wikipedians are not men under my command. They will respond at their own pace. To Jack Merridew and Ned Scott: Do NOT rush me. There are 2 million other pages to keep you busy in the meanwhile. -- Cat ^chi? 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with White Cat's suggestion that rushing him is not necessary. Wikipedia is not a doomsday device, afterall. Kyaa the Catlord 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about rushing, at all. This is pointing out that the real-world information for these articles is not there. Sorry Cat, but if you want these articles kept then you'll have to deal with a little bit of pressure. So far you've had over a year and a half to work on them, and given the complete lack of evidence to even suggest the necessary real world information needed, we have no reason to believe that these articles will ever reach expectable shape. With that being said, I completely support merging this content to either here, or to split lists per series. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Eloquently put, Ned. As is stands, and as it has for well over a year, these articles cannot justify their existence. If such a time comes when the necessary information is available then they can be recreated at a later date. Having said that, it important to bare in mind there must be enough information to warrent a full, seperate article. A single fact or two could be summerised on the episode list page. ShizuokaSensei 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This implies: for AMG, as well as any other series, episode listings with brief summaries is sufficient enough to cover the episodes themselves. KyuuA4 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are other episode articles that need review, which is the point of not dwelling on this issue. I didn't see any links over to the Japanese wikipedia on any of these articles so I expect the cart is in front of the horse here. I just noticed that these episodes have lost one of their fan-site links (see: [1][2]) — site seems to be a spam site now. A year and a half into these? Time enough. For non-notable tv show episodes, yes, a few lines are sufficient. If a specific episode is notable, and there are sources to back-up the assertion, then there will be sufficient material to write an article that does more than summarise the plot, host screen captures and list trivia. As of now, that's all these articles do. --Jack Merridew 12:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

also, splitting this list into several chunks is a good idea and it would be good to do so before pages get redirected so that whatever incoming links will find the appropriate page. --Jack Merridew 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jack that this list split is a good idea. Greg Jones II 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is going to get redirected. Do not play the dictator. I am working as hard as I can. Just stop it. -- Cat ^chi? 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? You do not appear to have edited these articles at all since this discussion began almost 3 weeks ago. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't learn Japanese overnight now can I? I am talking to Japanese editors on ja.wiki over this. It isn't easy to find someone into anime who knows both English and Japanese who is also willing to help. I am making some progress but I do not intend to rush things and annoy the ja.wiki community. They seem to be more easygoing than en.wiki. Pages can be merged "any time". Leaving me alone (regarding the merge thing) for a month or more would not harm the project. You are welcome to also seek the sources. Nothing prohibits you from helping out. -- Cat ^chi? 12:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave you alone? These are not your articles. I do not speak or read Japanese, have not seen any of these shows, do not have any expectation that reasonable sources exist for these, or much interest in editing them. I may — if no one else does, first — break-up the list into smaller pieces. "Any time" would include tomorrow. --Jack Merridew 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please I beg you people. At least leave me alone on one article I work on. Let me contribute in peace. -- Cat ^chi? 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, All right then. I will wait while you work. Greg Jones II 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

[3] [4] and etc can be used I think. -- Cat ^chi? 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be right. Also, if you have reliable sources, you can cite them. WP:CITE and WP:V. Greg Jones II 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a quick look at those two, they appear a general review of the series and doesn't have any episode-specific information. Or am I missing something? ShizuokaSensei 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure if these sources will work. Greg Jones II 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not general review of series. They are reviews for the dvds. Each DVD holds several episodes. Japanese version of the dvds have 3 episodes per dvd. US one has 5 episodes per DVD. -- Cat ^chi? 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ShizuokaSensei, you didn't miss anything. I just went through these and there is nothing specific about any individual episode. As a review of the series it is not even very flattering: "The production values are surprisingly average", "The animation quality hovers between ‘average’ and ‘mediocre’", "Belldandy remains a total subservient, naïve doormat, blindly devoted to the reactionary milquetoast Keiichi who's too inept to properly return her developing feelings for him. People tend to go either way on the Belldandy character; either she's an obnoxious, archaic fantasy girl for men who prefer their women to act like indentured servants, or she's the archetype of perfection, a flawless example of graceful femininity." This could reasonably be used with the series article and some of the character articles. It does not speak to the issue of individual episode notability. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not even understand your rationale. You talk about sources and then link this to notability. I really do not understand the logic of that at all. WP:N and WP:CITE are different and for the most part unrelated guidelines. -- Cat ^chi? 09:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the source you gave does not serve to establish notability for individual episodes. I believe I was clear enough on this. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to establish notability. It is just a citation candidate. -- Cat ^chi? 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledged that above. I'm done here today; time for others to comment. --Jack Merridew 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting-up the list

Splitting this list into several articles has been mentioned above and seems a good idea. I see that it achieved Featured List status and am unsure how to effect a split in this context... so, comments, please. --Jack Merridew 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. -- Cat ^chi? 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not necessary to split up the list. KyuuA4 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lets not explain ourselves, that's the ticket. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think before we start thinking about splitting this list up we need to bring the current problem of the indivdual episode pages to it's conclusion. There are currenty those scrabbling around frantically for information to assert the notability of single episodes above and beyond that of the series, but if this fails and the aricles are redirected here, then we should probably think about splitting this into more easily digestable chunks.ShizuokaSensei 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking, that we would only do this if we merged/redirected the episode articles. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I view the redirection as inevitable — the requisite sources do not appear to exist — and believe that splitting-up the list would be best done before the redirection so that they end up pointing at an appropriate list. If things occur in the other order I'm certainly not going to revisit the redirects and tweak them. The list does currently have unique episode IDs for the redirects to use so they can find the individual summaries in the current combined list. My point in opening this section was to avoid messing with the featured list status.. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow. Pressure is stunning. Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! NO way! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! It is a reminiscent of the vocabulary of a Dalek. Please drop the attitude. Redirecting is unnecessary just with the amount of content. Redirecting would reduce encyclopedia quality hence is unacceptable. Is this an attempt to "get even" with me since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott? -- Cat ^chi? 08:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Why do you think this about you? This is about the articles — really about the LOE in this section. If no one wants to split-up the list now, fine. The individual articles do not establish their notability and that needs to happen if they're going to survive this discussion. I have not looked at the reviews you gave above, but see that others were not impressed with them. I'll look now... --Jack Merridew 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... For one this entire discussion started the same hours the RFC was closed. Interesting coincidence. The notability claim is really ridiculous. What is your metric for notability? -- Cat ^chi? 09:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by third party reliable sources "taking note", in this case, of individual episodes. No one doubts that the series is notable enough to warrant an article — and a list of episodes — but there is no notability for individual episodes of most tv shows. --Jack Merridew 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability can be established by a variety of ways. Your view on episode articles in general are merely your opinion and is not backed by policy or guidelines. Any broadcast world wide is quite notable if you ask me. -- Cat ^chi? 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a read of the guideline: Wikipedia:Notability. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, many times. If a show itself is notable by sheer common sense so does the material that make up the show. If individual episodes are not notable then neither is a list of them and hence neither is the show itself. Blanket AFD all non-featured Simpson's episode articles and see how that goes. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat, with the greatest respect, your attitude throughout this entire discussion has been somewhat uncompromising, and you now appear to have taken on a full-on confrontational siege mentality. Please take some deep breaths and step back for a moment. The opinion echoed by several editors that individual episodes of this show lack notability is based on nothing other than the lack of third party sources to suggest otherwise. There is certainly no personal agenda against you, Belldandy, or anyone else. Nobody is giving you any attitude, and there is certainly no need to start name calling. ShizuokaSensei 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the sudden pile-on on a list of articles which were inactive for quite some time is rather intense, given it is right after the RFC. If sources don't exist, thats one thing. But recognition that they are hindered by language issues is a different thing. I think everyone agrees to this. Sources do exist but it is hard to find a Wikipedian who shows interest in the series to translate them. There are very very few JA<->EN translators. Notability is not anglo-centric after all. -- Cat ^chi? 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a translator, just to clarify. I need to use some online translators though. Greg Jones II 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that sources that will serve to establish notability for individual episodes exist in any language. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ShizuokaSensei, thank you for pointing this out. White Cat, please do not take this personally. You seem intent on defending these articles as-is; in their current state they are more like little shrines to the episodes than encyclopaedic articles. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles

Articles on Wikipedia are not expected to be featured to "exist". Most Simpson's episode articles do not have featured status. Cape Feare is a notable exception because it is a featured article. The only difference these articles (linked on the list) have from featured article Cape Feare is that these articles do not have information on the production, cultural references, and reception but neither do most of the Simpson's episode articles. This doesn't warrant a mass merger obviously.

When an article lacks content, you should be trying to add it as per {{Sofixit}}. You are not prohibited from including production, cultural references, and reception related info to these articles. I should not be the only person trying to improve these articles. There seems to be an abundance of complaining by the involved parties but seemingly no one but me has seriously tried to address the lack of content by expanding aside from me. I do not WP:OWN these articles therefore you should be trying to help as well.

The episodes themselves were obviously "produced" so therefore there must be info on production. This information probably available only in Japanese just as production info on Simpson's is only available in English. Just because some information isn't easily accessible does not mean it doesn't exist at all. Mind this is a recent series so production info may not be immediately available as this is a commercial strategy.

These episodes did receive a reception. A second season would not have been announced had the reception was not adequate. This is how it is for any anime or TV show for that mater. For every new season there must be an adequate amount of profit. Any TV show has to have "ratings" so that companies know if a show is good or bad (weather its profitable or not). So this information must be out there as well. Again it is difficult to access this info because it is mostly in Japanese.

As for the countless "cultural references" in the series, they are rather hard to write about. Firstly the references are often to Norse Mythology, not a field of my expertise. Other cultural references include references to advanced physics such as string theory, again not a field of my expertise. What this means is that it is complex and hard to write about. Does not mean they don't exist.

The mini series actually have more cultural references than the later 2005 TV series such as various "Godzilla"-like episodes which even had Mecha elements in one episode. Mini series even has an episode (rainy day) with no verbal speech whatsoever.

Notability isn't even an issue. There are featured articles on less notable material.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

?

There has been no progress on these episode articles in the four weeks this discussion has been going in circles. Closing. --Jack Merridew 09:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopening and do not close. Do not adjust section depths either. -- Cat ^chi? 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

White Cat - What are you doing?

You forever bang on about consensus, but it seems you only like to play that card when it suits you. A consensus was reached against you. The articles have been redirected until such a time that the evidence exists to prove individual episodes worthy of note above and and beyond the series itself. Please don't start acting as a law unto yourself. This is very confrontational behaviour and is doing nothing to help your case. I really struggle to understand how you can insist these articles continue to exist as-is. You may be the biggest Belldandy fan in the world, but your behaviour is appearing more and more obsessive and less and less rational.ShizuokaSensei 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what you think about me. I'll be working on these articles. I just will stop arguing with you people since you are without reason. -- Cat ^chi? 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. You are the one who now appears to be disregarding protocol and acting as a law entirely unto yourself. For one with such obvious respect and reverence for Wikipedia, your behaviour is akin to someone throwing a tantrum becuase you're not getting their own way. Carry on like this and people will start regarding you as little more than a vandal. ShizuokaSensei 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to keep discussing the above issues with interested parties. Hence why I objected and reverted your closure. If you do not wish to be a participant in the discussion, thats fine. You can stop watching it but please do not ban others from continuing it.
I have not reverted a single page since I surrendered to the discussion above which clearly states that unless/until sources can be found, pages will be redirected. It is a conditional statement and leaves a door wide open. I am taking it.
I am disregarding your "vandal" comment since I can't relate it to List of Oh My Goddess episodes.
-- Cat ^chi? 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, sir, you have no need to disregard anything. That is unless you're attempting to twist my words against you. I merely implied that if you insisted on running roughshod over consensus decisions then you'd be running the risk of alienating yourself to a point where noone is going to take you seriously. For a user who is gleefully displaying on their user page that they are 'hostile', it's a very real risk. ShizuokaSensei 09:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are very very new to this project. On wikimedia projects m:Wikimood represents ones frame of mind. I am merely at -07 and I do not understand your point. commons:Category:Wikimood has a full list of states. You and the people here have obviously contributed to the adjustment of my wikimood.

I expect no one to take me "seriously" as I am neither a god nor an elite person... As is noone. It however is expected and required that everybody is to take arguments on discussions by anybody seriously. You do not have to agree with them, you may even oppose them but you are not entitled to disregard them simply because of your dislike to the specific user in question. Any individuals comment has equal weight. Weather you like a person or hate them has no effect on the "seriousness" of a remark.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been on Wikipedia for several years, the "very, very new" tag is a little inaccurate to say the least! I've never in that time come across a "Wikimood" meter save for your userpage and I have no interest in learning the intricacies of this worthless piece of wiki-geekery, nor have I the time to waste in doing so. The second part of your comment is all very nice prose, but everything you say just appears be stating the obvious. ShizuokaSensei 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He is deleting my comments from this page and ignoring consensus.

The above discussion is closed, please to not attempt to revert it again. As I said on your talk page, you are free to resurrect episodes that you may find reasonable sources for. --Jack Merridew 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the discussion going on, but I do agree that redirecting now, until we have something to work with, is a good idea. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we are — an ongoing discussion. There was absolutely no progress being made on the articles. If reasonable sources are found, I have no problem with specific episodes being resurrected. --Jack Merridew 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am doing. There has been a lot of progress on my end in seeking sources. This is the best I can do by flying blind. -- Cat ^chi? 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Episodes merged

All of the episodes, exclusing the movie, have been merged now. The discussion on merging the episodes is closed by Jack Merridew. Greg Jones II 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, they have not been merged. They have been redirectified. Secondly the discussion is not closed. I will find sources and improve these articles as I see nothing objecting this. -- Cat ^chi? 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)