Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Tsukihime and mentioning fantranslations

This issue is becoming bigger on Tsukihime. The reliable sources noticeboard post on whether [1] is a reliable source was inconclusive. Today, Pytom added this statement to the article:

An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006.

Which I removed due to the inconclusiveness of the RS and the inconclusiveness here on whether fan-translations should even be mentioned. Another previously uninvolved editor keeps putting it back, and as undoing again would be 3RR, it is now staying there unless someone else removes. I think as a project we really need to come to a set conclusion here. By my view, mentioning the fan-translation is completely unnecessary and nothing that should be done here, anymore than fansubs, fandubs, and fanscanlations are mentioned in anime and manga articles. It sets a bad precedence, and the main sources for these translations are sites that couldn't pass WP:RS on its best day. Pytom argues that it is relevant to the article, "necessary for full coverage", and that the extraordinary claims exception covers the use of an otherwise non-reliable source (Pytom, feel free to correct if I'm mis-summarized your view). Thoughts AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say my position is probably closer to User:Mythsearcher's on WP:RSN, when he said: "It is not the most reliable source, yet it is obvious that if the steps were followed, one could verify the facts in a very easy manner. So it might not be most reliable, but at least it is verifiable." (He then goes on to talk about notability, which isn't at issue here, for a game that managed to spawn both anime and manga.)

I'll note that there is precedent to include information about video games that have been fan translated, such as in Star Ocean and Final Fantasy V. And to me, that makes sense. Fan translation of anime and manga are so prevalent that nearly all notable series are translated. But translations of games are rare enough that not mentioning the existence of a translation would mean the article was missing important information that puts the games in proper context. — PyTom (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As a professional translator, I'm vehemently opposed to giving any kind of legitimacy to unauthorized translations. Video games may not be as big a problem as translations for anime, manga, or light novels, but I don't see that they should be exempt, either. I stayed out of the earlier discussion because I could give a toss about policy; what's wrong is wrong, and this is not the place for that kind of information. If you want to know about illegal translations, find that information on a fansite. Keep it off Wikipedia. Unless there is major media coverage of a legal battle between fan translators and people who hold the rights to the translated product, there is simply no justification for covering it here, regardless of how we bend the semantics of the policy and guidelines to fit arguments on either side. Doceirias (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I personally don't believe mentioning the existence of a fan translation legitimizes it, anymore than having the Great Brink's Robbery mentioned in the article on Brinks legitimizes bank robbery. It does, however, answer the question of why Tsukihime is more well known than other visual novels of similar vintage in the English-speaking world. A discussion of the subject would be simply incomplete without mentioning that. — PyTom (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue Tsukihime is more well known because of the anime series. You can't argue either case, though, in Wikipedia without a reliable source, and a discussion of the subject does not need to say there is a fan-translation to discuss the game itself. It is extremely unlikely that a fan-translation somehow made it more well known than other visual novels. Censorship has nothing to do with it. It is nothing that needs to be mentioned as it is not a legitimate version and I think agree with Doceirias's arguments as well as my earlier stance. We have an article on the Great Brink's Robbery, but we don't link off the instructions on how to replicate it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can Wikilawyer all you want, some things are just wrong for Wikipedia. Unauthorized translations are one of them. There are plenty of other resources that can provide that information; keep it there. Doceirias (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that really depends. There's tons of articles on things that aren't "legitamate", as noted above, but 3rd party sources have called attention to them. We should treat this in the same way. Video game translations often DO get attention from news sites (mostly a passing mention, but are there), whereas I'd wager anime ones don't because they are so common place. But if they do...well, that's what could be used as the source for mentioning. Try and remember that WP has a neutral stance on things, and keeping stuff out because you might think it somehow would hurt business to call attention to it is an antithasis to that policy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But if that were true, we wouldn't have policies like WP:C or WP:EL#Restrictions on linking.--十八 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, however at least in this case, the game translation has gotten no attention from any news site. The source being used is a game fan translation directory. It would be one thing if it actually had extensive coverage in reliable sources, but it doesn't. The only coverage is in such directories, the distributing hackers site, and in some fanboards, hence it not needing to be included at all.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're actually agreeing with me. I was saying, if a 3rd party source mentions it, we can use that 3rd party as the linking source. That's the general policy for including content, so far as I know. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you expect to get around WP:EL#Restrictions on linking: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." That third party website links to the websites committing copyright infringement. Just because you're not directly linking to the first party doesn't mean you're not trying to undermine this restriction by linking through a third. And before you even start: a link is a link even if it's used as a reference or an external link, so the guideline does not just apply to ELs.--十八 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If what you were saying were true, we'd never be allowed to link to YouTube. This has been brought up before (here, even, I think, but definitely at the VG project), and most people agreed that as long as we don't tell people where to find the actual infringement, linking to a site that links to it doesn't matter. If you take the logic to the extreme, we could never have an EL unless we clicked EVERY link on THOSE sites, and then every link on the linked sites, etc. Where does it end? Not to mention, never linking to Google or any other search engine... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to matter of intent. YouTube does have infringing videos, but not intentionally and removes them when found. This site, like any fansub, et al site is deliberately and purposeful linking to illegal content for the express purpose of encouraging and endorsing its acquisition. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate, 3rd party sources must meet requirements. Because a source is 3rd party does not equate to being able to use it. In terms of copyrights, infringement and/or violations to the Wiki policy are absolutely not allowed. That policy, and all relating directly to it, trump any other policies so there's no going around it. Such should be kept in mind. While most of the concentration is centered around whethor or not sources meet RS/V requirements or relevance and context, policies regarding copyright must be taken into account first. While you could argue the former all day long, if the source fails policies relating to copyright then the whole discussion is a waste of time. Fox816 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but like Melodia said, the site in question does not containing any infringing content, only links to pages that contain links to possibly (depending on the legality of patches, which is under dispute) infringing content. (And note that the bulk of the links are to officially translated games.) Where does it end? I don't think copyright paranoia about transitive links should prevent us from including important verifiable information in the encyclopedia. — PyTom (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A fun thing is, as I recall, the copyright holder also holds the right of translation, which means translating the said copyrighted item and distributing it without permission is also a copyright violation. However, about is the translated words are the copyright by the copyright violator or not, I have no idea. My pov here is that it does not make the original company sell less copies, since it is almost free promotion for the original source. MythSearcher^talk 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is NOT policy. More importantly, fan-translations, or unoffical translations, of material w/o the original content included is not clearly illegal. Even fansubs are arguably, though much less so, not quite illegal since none of them have been tested in court. Assuming something is legal because the industry wrote the laws to suit them doesn't make it legal. Content of the original game with a patch is clearly different matter.

As for WP:V, nothing there or WP:RS says that a directory with some level of peer review can't be used. I checked up and down both lists and found nothing excluding such sites. If I missed it, I'd like someone to point out exactly where this is the case, because frankly I think everyone is just assuming directories no matter if they have independent review and oversight, are wrong and WP isn't about assuming.Jinnai (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to revisit that WP:COPYVIO once more and recheck your statement regarding that. It is policy and one that we have to hold with utmost regard. On your points about the legality of fansubs and related materials, I suggest reading this article. In a nutshell, "not quite" illegal doesn't exist. On your point about directories, standard policy and guidelines about direct linking still apply to indirect linking. You can't go around that by linking to a site that could otherwise pass or slipby WP:V and/or WP:RS which then links to sites that fail them when your intent is to do such. Additionally, directories are just categorized lists of links. Unless the subject of the material is about directories or the directory itself, or additional information provided by the directory is what is being used, there is no other reason to use a directory as a source. You should use the specific site provided by the directory as your source, not the directory itself. Fox816 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Results from WP:RSN

Basically the discussion came to the consensus that the patches do not violate anything on wikipedia for illegal content, and even if they do, WP:COPYVIO isn't policy, but guideline. Because of the grey nature of the subject matter, most of them appeared to consider posting information on patches to be fine as long as verifiable third-party sites could be used. That is where things go hung up. I posted a site that meets everything under WP:V for self-published sources policy, but claims that it doesn't meat WP:RS were made. So bottom line is that site is still disputed, but if we can find an independent site that has at least some kind of peer review or good rep, we can site them.Jinnai (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could have fooled me, especially with the whole {{policy}} at the top of WP:C and WP:COPYVIO...--十八 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a policy, but info about these patches doesn't necessarily violate it; it depends on what kind of info we're talking about. Info about the existence of the patches and the reasons for fans to make such patches (in relation to the market) is appropriate and can by included (provided that the info is referenced with reliable third-party sources). On the other hand, details about the patches themselves (how they're made, how they work, etc) does violate the policy, and so shouldn't be included. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus in that discussion at all. I maintain that patches are a copyright violation, enforced or not, and can't be mentioned on Wikipedia. Attempting to allow them on the grounds that the policies do not specifically rule them out is pretty much the definition of Wikilawyering; ignoring the spirit of the policy in favor of the literal word. Doceirias (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus in the discussion at all either, only some questioning and commentary before it was forgotten. I also agree, that patches are a violation of copyright and should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. We don't provide links and discussion on hacking Windows or MS Office or any other software, why should we do it for an H-Game? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Like I said above, we may not explicitly explain how to perform illegal acts, and we may not link to copyrighted material, but we certainly mention the fact that there is illegal stuff out there, if we've got a good enough source. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We also have fansub and fandub, but if you go to Microsoft Windows is there any mention that "if you don't want to pay for it, you can get free codes for it online"? Does Readerware mention that if you like but don't want to buy, you can go download cracks for it to avoid that whole issue? Does any software article mention any unauthorized hacks, cracks, etc? Do any of our television series articles or anime series articles have anything about going to download fansubs or buying bootlegs just because it hasn't been released in English yet? That was my point. Also, notice that both of those examples you give are well sourced from a variety of RELIABLE, independant sources, not the distributors/creators nor to any directory providing a bunch of similar downloads, hacks, etc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason for opposition is that these translators are merely providing the translation of the work, not the work itself. Insani (Wind, Planetarian, narcissu) even gives links so that people can go and buy the games, and don't provide links for illegal downloads of them. I think everyone can agree on the fact that illegally downloading the game (and providing a link to it on Wiki) is a clear violation of copyright. What people cannot agree on, however, is if an unofficial translation of the work in question does violate copyright. I bring this up because in the case of fansubs and fandubs and manga scanlations, the base material is included with the translation, since you can't have a fansub or fandub without the anime content, and you can't scanlate manga without the manga in question. However, in the case of game translations, you can provide the translation without ever giving up where to get the game via downloading.

But the fact still remains that any piece of work has a copyright on its content. Why should Wikipedia mention non-notable translations of works that are in violation of copyright? Is say, Mirror Moon was sued by Type-Moon for what they've been doing, then I'd say it'd be reasonable to mention that, but as it stands, game translations are in no way more notable than fansubs, fandubs, or manga scanlations. The fact that there are less game translations out there compared to anime/manga shouldn't determine notability; the content itself and the groups doing the translation should be notable in their own right. Plus, if you start mentioning illegal translations, you'll invariably get users who want to include more detailed information, like which group did it, and when it came out, plus all the users who would then want to provide a link to the content. So, in order to save us all that time and effort of endless reverts, we just shouldn't even mention the content unless it gets covered by some reliable third-party source (magazine, TV news, newspaper, etc).--十八 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, one such game, (Beloved) Kingdom was released by the translator because he could not get through the tangeled Japanese legal system surrounding these games. The fact it was released free, the translation patch, with that note would qualify as notability, plus some mention on Peach Princess's, now Jast USA's board that confirms this to an extent possible without (i suppose) violating an NDA. The problem with that game is reliable sources.

As for the others, the notability comes with the same level that any translation has for notability, ie it's in English and thefore that makes it playable to the majority of the audience that reads English wikipedia, whereas other games not translated would not meet that notability criteria since not many would play them. I mean, what is so notable about half the games listed there besides being officially translated into English?Jinnai (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that the appropriate standard for inclusion in an article is verifiability, not notability. Tsukihime is an obviously notable subject, and so we should give it a thorough treatment. That includes mentioning the existence of a translation, since the existence of such a translation is rare. (I don't know if there's a policy-based reason not to mention fansubs, apart from the fact that we don't mention commonplace things. We certainly mention the existence of fan-translated games.) — PyTom (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what we've been trying to argue. WP:V does not exclude sites that are reference sites if they are self pushied with some type of peer overview or already has a high integrity.Jinnai (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Beyblade characters

Is this a list of anime-only characters or is the intro incorrect? If the latter, could someone with knowledge on the subject fix it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look at the Beyblade hideousness article, I'd say it is correct. The manga seems to be barely acknowledged at all by whoever is editing those pages. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a manga? The main article doesn't make any reference of this, save for an "incomplete" infobox. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese article suggests the manga is merely a merchandising tie in, and it started out as an anime. Doceirias (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The official site seems to credit the manga as the original work, which would be reinforced by the manga being published over a year before the beginning of the anime series (ISBN 9784091414038, for example). —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there really is a manga. Viz licensed it and released it. It had 14 volumes [2]. Beyblade (manga) is the "article" for the manga *shaking head* AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at summaries of the first two volumes of the manga, which seems to indicate that at least the main characters from the original series are in the manga as well, which would make it a list for both media. Past that, I have no idea. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a separate manga article. Can someone here start cleaning up these pages? I don't know much of anything about Beyblade, but I'll get to tweaking if some general fixes can be done by someone. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the articles need some serious clean up. I also know little about the series, though, besides the name and already have a full plate at the moment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. When do you think you could start? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not for weeks...if you check my user page, you'll see my to-do list is beyond insane. If input is needed in discussions, though, just drop me a note. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. who never knew Beyblade manga existed? It was serialized on Coro Coro Comics for more than a year or two. I guess anime is more notable with the characters and maybe a section just for manga-only characters in the list. --staka (T ・C) 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of conception in Edward Elric

Hello, I have been cleaning Edward Elric during these days but I cant find ant information related with his creation. I know that there are many databooks of the series that may contain it, but they dont sell them in my country. Could anybody that have it tell me to add the information and the Template:Cite book? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject O-Parts Hunter

Someone said to me that it might be best if WP:MANGA adopted this inactive WikiProject. Any other thoughts or should this be done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I could see it being adopted as a task force/work group, with appropriate changes and renames. As its only a single manga series with 19 volumes, it certainly doesn't need a full blown project. I'm not sure it really needs a work group either, though. Maybe a temporary task force if people want to sign on to do some much needed clean up. Otherwise, I'd say let it get deleted, or marked historical since no one seems to want to delete projects anymore. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Is/was this work group/WikiProject ever needed? Given the very small number of articles (5) on the series, I can't see any justification for it's existence. --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a carryover from before founding WikiProjects was an organized process. But no, 5 articles is small enough that the project isn't going to be particularly useful for collaboration. So the page can probably be deleted or historicized. --erachima talk 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The template makes it seem like it has many more, I forgot it really is just five (you'd think I've have remembered from having to do all the renames LOL). I'd support outright deletion then. A subgroup isn't really needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Until the anime is created, would it be best if we tagged it with {{historical}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is an anime actually being made? It seems to only be rumor, so far. But I'd be fine with historical tagging for now. Even with the anime, though, that's just one more article for the episode list (if needed) :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there will be an anime, but regardless, tag away. AnmaFinotera, would you do the honours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done...I've removed the project template from the articles and put it up for deletion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor character page model

Is there a good page out there to model minor character pages after? I'm thinking of improving the Ranma ½ ones, but it's difficult to decide how to do so when there seems to be no consistent structure to the ones I've looked at. Derekloffin (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, not really though we are having some discussions on the topic at the MOS talk page. Most minor character lists are in fairly bad shape, and there is still some debate on whether they are necessary at all or if there should only be a list of major characters. I can't think of any minor char lists that have made it to FL status. For general guidelines, though, its similar to a regular character list just with less content. Try to make sure its compliant with WP:FICT, with a clean format, sources, some real world context where available and no excessively minor characters (such as the one-episoders) or trivia stuff (like height, weight, blood type and all that). For general character format, its usually the character name as a header, the description as a paragraph underneath. For voices, use {{anime voices}} and either have at the top below the header with a break after, or at the end of the paragraph. The first sentence of the descriptions should include the character name with {{nihongo}} for the Japanese and English names. Also, per WP:NONFREE only 1-3 group images at most. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the U.S.-Japan Women’s Journal?

I've been improving Yaoi on and off from the sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and it's come to my attention that the U.S.-Japan Women’s Journal, from about 2003 onwards, has stacks of stuff on yaoi, including getting into the subgenres and nitty gritty which at present, the WP article doesn't cover. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this journal, so I'm hoping that someone else does, and can assist me in accessing the relevant articles. Thanks. -Malkinann (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Medabots

Hey, you guys can take Medabots of your list of Articles needing expert attention. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When it no longer needs project attention, it will be removed. Right now it needs lots, starting with some much needed MOS application. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Must've misunderstood the list. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The list basically indicates articles that need someone familiar with the anime and manga MOS to help get an article into decent shape in terms of format and layout. It can also include articles where it is felt than someone very familiar with anime and manga articles from the project may be able to help supply missing basic information. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought an article would have been removed from the list once an expert is found. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It gets removed once the work is done, usually by the person who tagged it or if someone else confirms it is in okay shape. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I was just wondering cuz I'm new to this WikiProject. BTW, I'm doing a complete rewrite of the article, if that's OK. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to do your editing in the main article rather than working in your sandbox and doing a major change all at once. This allows other editors to see your changes as they happen and weigh in on them easier. I've found that if you do a super major change, you may find someone disagreeing with part of it and undoing all of it. So instead, work a bit a time. For example, in one edit, fix the infobox. In the next, work on section ordering and names per the MOS. Etc etc. Either way you decide to go, please make sure you are working within the guidelines of the Anime and Manga Manual of Style and the issues the article is currently tagged for in mind. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll just tweak the article then. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As AnmaFinotera says. It's not so much a guideline as a way that makes building consensus easier. I sometimes suspect the value of being bold is a bit overstated. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Josei Shonan Middle School needs merging?

I noticed Josei Shonan Middle School article - Perhaps it could be merged into the relevant articles for The Prince of Tennis ? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say delete. From the text, the school only appears briefly in the anime and not at all in the manga. Its completely unsourced and the characters are all extremely minor. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Japanese comics artists

There's this category, Category:Japanese comics artists, that has been proposed for deletion or renaming twice and has been kept both times. The problem is that currently it's very unpopulated, making it seem like there are very few Japanese comics artists with articles. I know there's a "See also" to the Manga artists category, but, as the community has decided twice, that's not the same. So, should I populate it? Cattus ^talk 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least it should be renamed to Category:Japanese comic artists. When you use a noun as an adjective, you always use the singular form of the noun instead of the plural form. But this category should be populated by Japanese comics artists who are not manga artist. In other words, Japanese-Americans who work in the comic industry. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case it should be renamed Category:Japanese American comic artists. Comics is just the English name for the art form, doesn't necessarily refer to American comics. Cattus ^talk 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with Category:Japanese superheroes, where it's not clear if it is for fictional Japanese characters in superhero comics, superheroes created in Japan, Henshin heroes, heroic anime and manga characters, or all of the above.--Nohansen (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Tessaiga to Tetsusaiga

Here's another requested move. I propose that this is moved from Tessaiga to Tetsusaiga because:

• 1. "Tetsusaiga" is used in all official English-language versions published by VIZ Media in the US, UK, and Canada... and...
• 2. There is no Wikipedia:Reliable source that explicitly states that the naming "Tetsusaiga" is a mistake.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you brought this up on the InuYasha page? That should probably be where the discussion takes place to ensure the editors of those articles are fully aware of it, and any decision made, particular since quite a few Inuyasha pages would need to be updated. I've gone ahead and started a discussion there, so the comments can be with the main article. Its a long time coming discussion anyway. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see now you also started the discussion on the Tessaiga talk page. As noted above, though, because of the implications and a bigger issue at hand, I've left a note on Tessaiga's page to take the discussion to Inuyasha where I've gone ahead and put your reasonings. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:InuYasha#Naming_Conventions WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How to display different names of anime and manga characters?

At Talk:List of characters and dinosaurs in Dinosaur King there is a format issue.

I am in favor of one of the two styles:

• Ryuta Kodai (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryuuta) / Max Taylor
• Max Taylor / "Ryuta Kodai (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryuuta)

And User:CBFan is in favor of this:

• Max Taylor (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryuuta, Ryuta Kodai)

See the talk page for more :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the video game is the primary work, they should be listed by the video game names. From what I'm reading in the article, the game changes the name to English ones as well? If so, the headers should have only the English names, then start the character description with something like "Max Taylor (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryuuta) blah blah..." and make sure the lead notes that the names were all changed in the game with appropriate sourcing. If the names were kept to the original in the games, then use the Japanese name for the lead, a regular nihongo of Ryuta Kodai (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryuuta) and note somewhere in the character description that in the English dub, the name was changed to X. See List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for an example of the latter, where the first work, the manga, kept the Japanese names in the English release while 4Kids renamed everyone in their dubbed version of the anime.AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the game has been released in English yet... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Per AnmaFinotera, simply use "Ryuta Kodai (古代 リュウタ, Kodai Ryūta), known as Max Taylor in the English adaptation of..." Also, the page should be renamed to List of Dinosaur King characters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. People are going to miss information with that sort of structure. Regardless of which names came first, they should all have EQUAL priority. Saying "So-and-so" (also known as "Fill-In-The-Blank") is not going to work well, if you ask me. CBFan (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Per our MOS, no, they do not have equal priority. The video was the first version of the series. As such, if it is licensed in English, we use the video game's English names. If not, we use the original names from the game. For other adaptations/versions, we include a note in the prose to indicate name changes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about the anime here, not the video game. I'd also like to say that I've just looked at the pages for Pokemon and Digimon, and in both cases, the English names are included before the Japanese names. We either need to be consistant, or do some major re-editing. CBFan (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever media we're dealing with is irrelevant. The same style is used. The only discrepancies would be in which name to use, which is often decided by whichever is the more commonly known among English speakers. For an illustration, see the first sentence of Soma Cruz. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pokemon and Digimon both started as anime. They are both licensed in English. The English names are used. I do stand corrected, though. The opening of the Dinosaur King is confusing so I thought it started as a video game, but instead it started as a card game. I'm still inclined to say that whatever names are used in the card game comes first, as it has also been released in English and is still the primary work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, no matter what else, the list needs to be renamed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List moved to List of Dinosaur King characters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think List of cards in Dinosaur King is unnecessary? It looks like in-universe AfD bait to me, and merging it to Dinosaur King would probably be best. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a straight delete would work here. Doesn't seem like anything but a list of "monsters of the week" kinda thing, which isn't necessary at all. Don't see anything mergable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing even remotely close to a "Monsters of the week" thing. I'm not saying anything for or against it, but it isn't that. In fact, that page was originally IN Dinosaur King before being separated to its own page. You'd be best off talking to the seperator. CBFan (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[[3]]. There's the guy who separated List of cards in Dinosaur King from Dinosaur King in the first place. CBFan (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected after re-reading the article. As such, it really needs to be deleted as Wikipedia is not a collector's list nor a game guide and that falls squarely in both AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD filed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cards in Dinosaur King. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, we for the most part call characters by dub names as the card game uses them too: http://www.sau.sega.com/dinosaurking/brochure.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Tanabe

There is a manga author called Yellow Tanabe, and she wrote Kekkaishi. When I created an article on her an AFD appeared and consensus lead to a merge into Kekkaishi. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Tanabe

I want to make it separate again, but what should I do? Where should I look? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any article on an author must meet WP:BIO. Unfortunately, this is extremely hard to do with manga artists, particular those who aren't proliferate or well followed by English speaking/reading fans. Many authors barely have any coverage in reliable sources in Japan, so finding ones we can use is made double difficult. Tanabe was a relatively new author when she wrote Kekkaishi and I don't know if she's done anything since (though she did win an award for Kekkaishi). She also won another award, according to ANN[4] but would need another source for that. Most of her google hits, though, are for retail listings of Kekkaishi. I'd suggest starting with the Japanese Wikipedia to see if they have an entry on her, and what it has that might help with a starting point, and working in your sandbox for now.AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time, it seemed the idea was that when she wrote a second series, she could get a page - but frankly, I think writing an award winning series that had been adapted into an anime and translated in English is more than enough justification for notability. Doceirias (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

She's on JA: ja:田辺イエロウ WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The JA article also has this page about Tanabe: http://websunday.net/backstage/tanabe.html - It can be used as a source.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Winning the Shogakukan Manga Award should be enough to pass WP:BIO, especially combined with the newcomer award (true, it'd been good to source that better) and being former assistant to Mitsuru Adachi. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated the article Yellow Tanabe with the information stated by Quasirandom. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the sources. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They are in Japanese, but I have 'em! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce, anyone?

So a while ago, I made a personal pledge to remove one title a week from the cleanup list. I was doing pretty good with it, too, until I got sucked into a task that's taken two months so far and there's more to do (but, really, the state of the Fruits Basket articles was embarrassing for a series that outsells Bleach). But it's gotten me thinking -- anyone interested in starting a taskforce dedicated to scrubbing articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be an excellent idea, and a very useful task force. I'd also be interesting in joining, since I'm already unofficially doing the same, though without the one a week pledge :) It could also be a nice way to avoid some duplication of work if the task force had the list of clean ups there, then those who are part of the group note they are working on an article, so we can systematically get through them.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordination would be a plus, yes. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It can become fairly systematic as in we can improve all aspects of the topic. We already have all the relevant layouts and designs for main articles, chapter lists, episode lists, and so on, and as such, the process is well defined. Such a task force would be good simply for setting targets. We don't have to improve them to GA/FA/FL class, but we certainly get get the ball moving on that. The only sticking point we're going to encounter is the inevitable character merging that we'll be doing, and wherein we can to get around local editors to get things cleaned up (the Saint Seiya cleanup nightmare anyone?). That said, it would be better doing something about that rather than nothing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist is another example. There are 7 lists of characters and 12 articles about alchemy, cities, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that getting to GA+ would be more than what the taskforce should aim for -- I'm thinking a group dedicated to wikifying, getting layouts to conform to MOS, swotting up appropriate leads and infoboxen, possibly hunting down a minimal number of references to support WP:V/WP:N. The mechanicals, largely, though that usually involves a lot of rewriting -- cleaning up enough to detag the articles, so that other editors can work on building up the content. The character merges will be tricky, yes -- especially if you do them en-mass. As part of getting "local" buy-in, it really helps lead into them slowly -- but we can strategize on a talk page once we get one. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A similar task force that we can look at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Same general idea. As such, we can use the same layout for a task force if we chose to make it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does a taskforce get started, anyway? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces: basically we make a subpage of the project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup taskforce starting by using {{subst:Task force}}, then put in the info, participants, create a to-do, etc. When we're ready to go, add a link to the main page and...um...go *grin* AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be interested in joining such a taskforce, though I couldn't guarantee any certain amount of my time being spent on it. Aside from that, though, I seem to enjoy cleaning up infoboxes where necessary, and it's not too unusual for me to end up being sucked into improving the article in general. —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you and me both. It usually starts so small, "oh, missing an infobox, or somethings off" and next thing I know, I've been cleaning for hours :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah. That. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Magical DoReMi/Ojamajo Doremi Name and Merges

Magical DoReMi is tagged for merging into Ojamajo Doremi (series). The first is a season focused article for the latter, even though its the same show. Talk:Magical DoReMi#Merge Ojamajo Doremi into this article if you'd like to join in the discussion. Both article have tons of issues, but the merge discussion should probably also be taken care of since its been tagged since February. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it would seem one editor, a minor, is feeling a little ownership here, so third opinions on both the merge, and attempts to clean up the article(s), would be appreciated. And, of course, help with cleaning up the sub-articles would be great. I've done some quick and dirty on the main, but already have a full plate to try to take care of it all. If anyone is good with templates, the series template {{Ojamajo Doremi}} needs some SERIOUS work to be given a more standard format. Right now, it takes up nearly half my screen in horizontal space. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I updated {{Ojamajo Doremi}} to use {{Navbox}} and to list *all* of the related articles that I could find, but the whole thing is still way too sloppy to really streamline the template's links. =P —Dinoguy1000 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I started to last night and got a headache trying to sort out all the mess. :P At least it is a much more reasonable size now.AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As another update, Magical DoReMi has now been tagged to have the individual season articles also merged into it. So there are now three discussion/issues that need taking up: article name - should be it Magical DoReMi even though only one season was licensed to English, or Ojamajo Doremi; should the series be covered in a single well formed article, or should ever season have its own article; how to deal with the merges of these, the two duplicating character lists, and the duplicating episode lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance with Naruto/Sailor Moon/Airbender/Ronin Warriors

Hi. We've been trying to improve an article lately, Classical elements in popular culture. It contains sections on the use of classical elements as themes in fictional works, including the ones listed above. I know little about these shows, so I was wondering if someone from this project could help with proofreading the entries, reducing the in-universe style of writing, and adding sourcing if any is available. Much obliged.--Father Goose (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken a stab at the Sailor Moon section. Is it better? --Masamage ♫ 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much.--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

More Article Renaming

I've started a discussion at Karin (manga) suggesting that the article be renamed to Chibi Vampire, as that is the official English release name of the manga (primary work) and the novels. This would be in keeping with other series renamed like so, such as Tramps Like Us and O-Parts Hunter. Please feel free to weighin at Talk:Karin (manga)#Article Name AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) regarding the layout of series articles and whether reception should be above or below the media information. There is also an on-going discussion on dealing with adding content to the MOS regarding setting and theme, on tweaking the media information section, and on the creation of subpages for Lists of episodes/chapters/characters. Why not come over and off your thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiromi Ishikawa

I am working on Hiromi Ishikawa on User:Kitty53/Test page. Can anyone help me when they have time?Kitty53 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I expanded and referenced it a bit. I think it may be ready to move live, and there are several links to where it would be already. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Someone has posted to Template talk:Infobox animanga wanting our infoboxes to be redesigned to look like the VG game one. Please swing by and offer your views. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a discussion related to the infobox image.--十八 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile Magazine Anyone?

Anyone have a copy of the April 2002 issue of Tokyopop's Smile magazine? I need to confirm that it was the last issue Marmalade Boy was serialized in, and to see if the magazine mentions why it was stopped? Any help appreciated! AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving the Da Capo articles

I propose a move of the D.C. ～Da Capo～ and D.C. II ～Da Capo II～ articles (and any related branch articles) to D.C.: Da Capo and D.C. II: Da Capo II respectively to conform with other article moves like Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl or Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume. I'd say the main thing are those awkward tildes which can't even be reproduced on most English-language keyboards since they use the small tilde ~, while the Japanese use the much larger one. The reason I bring it up here, instead of at either of these article talk pages is the matter of getting people to know about it, and also to come to a certain consensus related to articles under this project's scope that use symbols not easily produced on keyboards. I know that there's already the guideline WP:NC#Special characters and WP:UE, but I thought I might as well bring it up here anyway.--十八 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an addition to one of our related MOS pages advising against the use of these marks, too. Not only do we currently have titles using some form of hyphen or tilde, we have titles that use either one or two. These pages should be moved to a more standard form of writing secondary titles in English. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could "II" be "Ⅱ"?--staka (T ・C) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose technically it is, but again Ⅱ cannot be as easily typed in as II can. It's the same problem as with the long tildes.--十八 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the articles should be renamed, and that MOS also should clarify this. I think II should remain II in the rename for the same reason. We should be avoiding special symbols n the article name that are not easily typeable on a standard keyboard.AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally remove the both tilde in favor of a colon to replace the first. This is the most common method to split a title into a title and a subtitle in English. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime News Network

While Anime News Network is like a Wiki, where anyone who registers can edit, how can we confirm that anything on their is accurate? Generally, they seem to give the users or readers the correct information but we cannot be sure for everything. That is also one reason the Internet Mobie Database should not be and are not used in biography articles.. Also, how notable is Anime News Network actually, by the way? --staka (T ・C) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can contribute there, but the staff will look at the submissions before they are published on the site. --Mika1h (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If their editor-in-chief is being invited to speak at the Tokyo International Anime Fair and quoted in the Daily Yomiuri[5], that's notable enough for me (and that's just the first hit of 5 on Google News for the past month). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime News Network is one of, if not the, largest English anime news site there is. It is very notable and has industry support, as can be seen by industry executives being interviewed by them, the above noted requests to speak at the Tokyo International Anime Fair, etc. Their reviews have been quoted in promotional materials for some series. Only the encyclopedia entries are editable/correctable by users, however submitted changes to have editorial over sight so the use of those pages is acceptable when other sources can not be found.AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Anime News Network staff check for any vandalisms.. they probably don't even check if the users are contributing the correct information. Well I guess they are notable enough for their own article.. I never knew they were that famous, even over seas. --staka (T ・C) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They do have oversight on the user-submitted portion, but I've seen enough mistakes (particularly with romanized episode titles) that I don't think we should be using it to source. —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. If their staff check the submissions before they are published on the site, which they do, then the site meets the relevant policy's criteria, and therefore it is a reliable source. That being the case, we, as a wikiproject, have no power to prohibit editors to use this site as source material. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean we shouldn't be using the Encyclopedia portion, or any of it? The news items, including user submitted, are all verified by editors before being published, which certainly meets the WP:RS requirements. Contributions to the Encyclopedia portion also require sourcing and they have a published bibliography for much of their data: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/bibliography.php. Only some parts of the encyclopedia are immediately user editable and those edits are regularly audited, which would also seem to meet the RS requirements. The Anime Encycloepedia is considered a reliable source, but I also found some mistakes in it (like it saying Medabots was based on a 1977 computer game rather than 1997 :P). That doesn't invalidate it as a reference. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be used as the only source. There should always be other sources if possible. They are generally reliable, especially for more mainstream titles. It's the more obscure ones which they tend to get wrong (if they cover them at all). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion Links, MOS link location, and More

There is a new topic over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) regarding linking to regularly asked questions (and the answers) in our archives, where the anime/manga MOS link should be located in the MOS infobox that appears to the right side of MOS pages, and whether our MOS is a "summary style" of the main MOS or more of a related topic. Why not join in the discussion? AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach Name

A discussion has started at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Bleach name concerning the article name and a request that it be renamed from Bleach (manga) to Bleach (series). The current name would seem to stem from our MoS listing manga, anime, etc as disambiguation names, and Bleach's first work being the manga series. However, some feel it should be disambiguated with series instead, as they feel manga gives the impression there is a separate anime article. I feel more folks should be involved in the discussion, because the outcome could potentially bring the need for a change in our MoS's naming section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move the page, I suggest you also create a full move request via Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't. Please read the thread in the Bleach talk page. Someone else said it should be moved, several of us disagreed but I brought it up here to ensure adequate discussion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another topic has come up at Bleach (manga) which could use project discussion. Multiple times its been mentioned that Bleach, and a few others, had bad media list split outs that needed to be merged back and fixed. This was recently done with Bleach (finished tonight even). However, another editor is calling into question whether the novels, CDs, etc should even be mentioned at all and that the media section should only cover the "major media" such as the anime, manga, movies, and video games. He specifically says he feels the novels are not notable enough for mention because they "have no more link to the original author than do the lines spoken by actors in the anime" and are just repeats of the manga story. I personally disagree, and our MoS specifically notes mentioning novels/light novels, CDs, drama CDs, etc. He has asked for outside opinions as I reverted his removal of the novel list. To join the discussion, head to Talk:Bleach (manga)#Media list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said that the novels fail notability guidelines, and the analogy you reference had to do with discussing the novels at the cost of discussing other aspects of the franchise at the parent article. I do not take issue with the redirection of the media article. It is the level (and spottiness) of relatively inconsequential detail added to the main article that I take issue with. Dekimasuよ! 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussing of the novel is not being done at the cost of discussing anything else. No one is saying you can't discuss something else be cause the novels are mentioned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A few fans who barely do any editing are complaining about the merge of the Bleach media list, even though all verifiable and relevant information was merged into the main article. Anyone else want to help explain why this unsourced, catch all page was not a "well organized" list and was not in keeping with our MoS and Wikipedia standards in general. Also, feel free to check my merging. I think I got all merged that should be merged, not including the theme list because its covered in the episode lists and the huge table seems irrelevant. The discussion is at the earlier one linked above and at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Media list....why? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

There is a genre discussion back here concerning Dragon Ball. If possible, let's be done with this ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shintaro Asanuma

I am also working on Shintaro Asanuma on my test page, User:Kitty53/Test page. Please help when you have time, will you please? Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Rename Discussion

A discussion has been started at Talk:Higurashi no Naku Koro ni proposing it be renamed to When They Cry, the title the English anime adaptation was partly released under by Geneon.

As a side note, maybe we need a dedicated section for rename discussions for awhile :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move Kimi ga Nozomu Eien to Rumbling Hearts already? Google shows Wikipedia is now the ONLY place that show up with this title, its just being clung to by some fanboys. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because I could have sworn "Kimi ga Nozomu Eien" was being used by 586,000 different sites. What was I thinking? The game is not known as "Rumblings Hearts", so since that's the base material, the article should not be changed only because the anime is called that.--十八 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is (at least one some versions, and as a subtitle but still..), as I pointed out on to Kiminozo page a couple of years ago. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That was for the non-eroge version, wasn't it? And I don't think the use of an official subtitle should determine the overall title for a work if the original work didn't use that subtitle.--十八 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With exception that the root source of the material is the game - not the anime. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These instances seem to be the exception to the rule, where essentially only a small component of a franchise is licensed outside of Japan. There are some cases that what is licensed may not be representative of the whole. Perhaps, the MOS should be expanded to address this? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of series have been renamed to the English counterpart. This should be standard, no argument. Such as Boys Over Flowers. Per WP:English. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC(UE) does not automatically have priority over WP:NC(CN). If the English name is the more common, then fine, but that should not be a foregone conclusion. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime and Manga comparisons

Just a quick question if I may - is it usual practice, when writing plot summaries of a TV series based on a manga, to note which chapters of the manga relate to the episode (if any)? If so, is there an example of this being done, or, if not, is it something that could (and perhaps should) be reasonably done in a list of episodes? Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be done. At most, you can note which volumes the anime adapts in the lead, but it's otherwise unnecessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it should not be done, especially not in the episode/chapter lists. It is general OR and unnecessary detail, even if it is "obvious." In the main article, when discussing the media, you can note that the anime was based on the manga, or on part of the manga (for example, the Fruits Basket article notes that the anime only covers through volume 9 of the manga), but not a blow by blow of which chapter to which episode or visa versa. In the overall plot summary, you can also have a brief, preferable source section giving an overview of changes from between the primary and the secondary forms. Beyond that, sourced information on the adapting of one to the other is nice in the production section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for that. Clarity is always a good thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha Chapter List Rescue

Here's a big project that seriously needs done as soon as possible, a rescue of List of InuYasha chapters! The format is horrible and the editors currently controlling it have chosen to completely leave out all Japanese release information! The lead is also too short, strange prose sections added to the end of the list, and the sectioning is relatively randomly decided and unnecessary. Some of the plot summaries are overly long, and rather than editing the plots down to deal with the "size" issue they have employed an highly inappropriate and hideous transclusion system that violates Wikipedia guidelines regarding subarticles. Everything is completely unsourced as well. I've left a note on the page about this, but posting here as well to see if anyone want to tackle the massive redo this needs? AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I've started a discussion at Talk:List of InuYasha episodes#Splitting List to see about splitting the InuYasha list into season pages in a similar fashion to List of Naruto episodes, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes, and List of Bleach episodes. Feel free to weigh in. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Totoro and Shinto elements discussion

Anyone interested is encouraged to come participate in this discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Excel Saga media

I've tagged List of Excel Saga media for splitting into an episode list and a chapter list. A split could be done pretty easy, and I think with some relatively quick formatting fixes, lead rewriting, and addition of references, both new lists could be brought to FL status in a fairly short time as the summaries seem like they should mostly be good to go. Any takers? I've started the discussion at Talk:List of Excel Saga media#Split. (as a side note, I also reset the article's assessment from A to start as the A assessment was given with no peer review by someone who just seemed to randomly assess it first to B then to A in rapid succession). AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to weigh in here? So far, only one person has commented and they oppose as they feel it reduplicates effort (no idea why...). AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chi (manga)

Can someone place the appropiate tags on this article, and maybe fix it up a bit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not really a manga, its an MIC, and outside the scope of the project. It's also just some guy's personally written manga with no notability. Tagging for deletion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When did Case Closed start?

On the Case Closed page it is listed as 1996 starting date (airing in Japan on that date), but I always thought it started in 1986. It used to say 1986 on the page (I think) but now it has been changed. Anime News Network artcile on the show is very confuseing and does not clear up the matter. I am unsure of the source that states the show began in 1996, but I believe it is inncorrect. We need another source but where can we get one? I have looked but I can't seem to find any good ones.

After watching an episode of the show, a calendar (clearly shown in one of the episodes) says the year is 1988. That would make sense if the show started in 1986, but be rather off if it started in 1996. Although I sapose the show could take place in the 80's (the past) and have been started in the 90's, but there is not much information on that as well. I started a conversation here, please continue it there. That is where it was suggested that I make a post here about it. Any help would be appreciated. - Prede (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the manga or the anime? The manga first appeared in the May 1994 issue of Shōnen Sunday, while the anime began airing in Japan in 1996. Both are still running. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Random Attacks

Anyone else seeing a lot of problems with random IPs deprodding, detagging for mege, reverseing merges, and straight vandalism, in our anime articles with the same article being hit multiple times? There going to get sick of seeing my name in RPP at this rate. I've already had to have 6 or 7 articles protected to stop it. One of the vandalisms implied that its a coordinated disruption effort by 4Chan users, and I'm curious as to what all they are hitting (and feeling a little paranoid that so many articles on my watchlist are getting hit). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds interesting... I don't have any prodded/merge articles on my watchlist (at least, none that have been hit) so I can't provide insight into it. Are there any postings on 4Chan about this? And what are some of the articles that are getting hit? —Dinoguy1000 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is, I haven't seen anything. I suspect it's on one of the larger boards like /a/ or /v/, though /b/ is also a possibility. Smaller boards like /jp/ could also be hit, but then I haven't been on 4chan in a few days, and I only browse /a/ and /jp/.--十八 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. If it's 4chan shenanigans, I'm surprised their mascot hasn't been hit. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't figured out how to navigate 4Chan so not sure. There is also a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Coordinated Distruption? to see what else can be done. The hit pages on my list: Four War Gods, Utsugi, GetBackers story arcs, Brain Trust (GetBackers), TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3, and Tasuku Meguro. All were relatively recent merges, with some being ones tagged for merging (in favor of deprodding), or tagged or other issues. All have since been protected. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those articles? That's not 4chan. Or at least not any sort of coordinated effort by their anime board. (Now if it were Code Geass vandalism...) Article merges are never exactly popular with the readers though, you're probably just getting the normal flak for that. --erachima talk 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it hadn't come from 20 or more different IPs, and at the same time and with each article hit in a seemingly coordinated effort in that as soon as their hit was reverted someone else redid, maybe. Or maybe since it only seems to have been my merges, tagging etc to be hit, maybe its just one of the same jerks who vandalizes my userpage with random IPs every other month or so. *sigh*AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist characters discussion

There is a discussion here about the large number of lists of the series characters. Everybody is invited to give their opinion and finally decide to merge the lists. Cheers.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What if we don't want the lists merged? Just pointing out that your invitation to join in is very biased toward one outcome. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so let me do it again. There is a discussion here to discuss if we want to merge the lists of not. Everybody is invited to give their opinion. So?Tintor2 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura and Cerberus vs Keroberos

I've started a discussion on the main Cardcaptor Sakura talk page to discuss the issue of the name of Kero-chan's main article Cerberus (Cardcaptor Sakura) and whether it should be renamed to Keroberos per the MoS, along with all instances of Cerberus changed to Keroberos within the CCS articles. Input there from the project would be greatly appreciated. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Madlax and Noir images

Aren't Noir and Madlax character pages overusing images ? Margaret Burton (6 images), Madlax (5 images), Mireille Bouquet (5 images), Kirika Yuumura (5 images). Isn't it a bit too much for the purpose they serve ? Jean-Frédéric (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Tag for excessive non-free. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut down Mireille to just (2) and Kirika to (3). I'll add commentary some commentaries. Overall, the articles themselves need a lot of cleanup. Fox816 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your opinions. Recently, i ask Fox816 for helps and he/she told me that i can keep 1 instead of 2. I’m asking you if i can keep it, it’s going to be deleted soon. OgasawaraSachiko (Talk) 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of opinion. We're just following policy. There's a grand difference. As well, I said you may have some luck keeping the first one, I never made a decision that you could. That aside, Ogasa needs more insight on non-free images and what can and can't be included in articles (mainly individual character articles). Fox816 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I need some help with editing the Ojamajo Doremi article

I've been considering doing an overhaul of the Ojamajo Doremi article and all articles related to it (Such as Sharp, Naisho, Motto, etc) as I feel they are not written well. However, there are very few English sources I can use, as the show was not very popular in the US, yet it was very popular in Japan and elsewhere.

I'm just not entirely sure where I should begin. I've requested someone to translate the Japanese article into English, but failing that, I'd like to overhaul these articles to improve them.

What can I use for sources? I can use the show of course, but what about a fansub of the show? I help work on the only existing English fansub of this show, and we do a very good job with it. Can I cite our fansubs as sources, or would I have to stick with the original episodes? My own knowledge of Japanese is minimal, so my job with the fansub is just quality control of the script. This would make citing dialogue and conversations between the characters difficult without using the fansub.

This seems like a daunting task, but I strongly feel that this anime needs better articles, I just don't know where to begin.

Someone help!

PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the articles. There was an earlier post about it, that's now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 28#Magical DoReMi/Ojamajo Doremi Name and Merges. There is a slow, on-going discussion still going on at Talk:Magical DoReMi#Merge Ojamajo Doremi into this article There are discussions about merging them back into a single article as well, as there are no significant differences in the various seasons. To answer your question, no, you can not site your fansubs as a source, nor should any links to them be added. It violates WP:COPYVIO. You can site the episode itself but that is only for sourcing character information. The majority of the article's content should be coming from reliable, third-party sources and focus on its real-world aspects, not just the plot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand. Why would a third party source be more reliable than the show itself? Also, what if we're citing dialogue from the show, but since obviously the show is Japanese, how would one go about doing that if we can't use the fansub? PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Third-party sources are for focusing on the series real world aspects. The plot and show contents should be a relatively small part of the series article. The majority of the article should be focusing on available information on aspects such as production, reception, broadcast and distribution, etc. See our MoS for an idea of what a proper article should have. When citing an episode, you are citing the episode itself, not any specific piece of dialog, so you aren't giving any quotes. As such, you are citing the episode, not a specific translation of it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AnmaFinotera, while all of that is correct, I think the way you phrased it is probably going to cause more confusion to someone who doesn't know policy than anything else.

When you cite a fansubbed episode of an anime as a source, the fact that it is fansubbed is considered immaterial. You simply cite the Japanese episode, and the fansub is considered as a translation of a foreign language source, rather than as an actual source. In other words, if a piece of information comes from Magical DoReMi episode 25, then you just cite "Magical DoReMi episode 25", not "the fansub of Magical DoReMi episode 25".

And no, third party sources are not considered a better source for plot information than the series canon. However, articles on fiction are not supposed to be merely plot information, and should also contain as much real world information from reliable third party sources as possible in addition to covering the plot of the work. This would include things like the reception and development of the series. Not always easy to find, but it's great if it can be located. (See Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the anime project style guideline.) --erachima talk 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What's an MoS? Can you link me to it? And thank you for clearing that up about citing an episode. I'm still not really sure why the plot and show contents need to be a small part of the article. I realize that the article isn't supposed to be a detailed summary of the show, but that seems kind of defeating the purpose, I feel. I realize development, reception, etc are all important factors that nee[[d to be mentioned, but why downplay the plot and show contents? And if you can't tell, I'm unfamiliar with standard Wikipedia procedures when it comes to editing. Most of my past edits have been met with ill response, which is also why I'm somewhat reluctant to do this. PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A MoS is a Manual of Style. Its a guideline to aid in determining what should (and often shouldn't) be in an article. For anime and manga articles, our MoS is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). We downplay the plot and show contents, because they are not the encyclopedic aspects of the series. We give a summary of the plot and enough character information to aid in basic understanding, while not providing excessive and minute plot details as it violates various Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and depending on how much plot, possibly WP:COPYVIO (the later still being an issue of debate). For most series, we will have an episode list, which includes individual summaries of episodes between 100-300 words in length. Long enough to cover the major plot points and resolution, but not scene-by-scene detail. The same with summaries of manga chapters. For the over all plot, it should not be excessively long, generally 300-700 words depending on the length of the series and complexity of the plot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again)An "MoS" is a Manual of Style, a page which describes the commonly accepted methods for organizing articles on Wikipedia. WP:MOS is the primary one, WP:MOS-ANIME is the most specific to our topic.

The plot and show contents don't need to be downplayed exactly, they should just be succinctly described. The best way to balance it in my experience is to remember that you're writing for a reader that hasn't seen the show and isn't a fan. This means that, while you have to describe the plot to give context, if you go into high amounts of detail you're likely to just confuse them. For some good examples of how to structure an article, look at the articles listed under WP:ANIME#Recognized articles, which lists pages that have been awarded for being well-written.

And no problem, everyone was new at one point. If you have questions, we're happy to help. --erachima talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While the links have been helpful some, I'm still not really sure where I should begin. There's just so much information to take in, and I have no idea where I should start or what I really should try to include. The fact that they still havn't agreed on whether or not to merge the Ojamajo/Magical Doremi articles doesn't exactly help. Should I base information on the English dub (Since this is the English Wikipedia) or the original? Should I use Ojamajo Doremi (original Japanese title) as the title, or Magical Doremi (international title for dubs, including English dub). Who would be coming here more often, fans of the dub, or fans of the original? Ugh, this is making my head spin. PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the crux of the argument on the name, and there hasn't been nearly enough input on it yet. Only part of the series was licensed and named Magical Doremi, so its hard to determine if it should be used, or if Ojamajo Doremi should be used as it is the name for the bulk of the series and that bulk is mostly unlicensed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we can spend as long as we need to figuring things out and still make the deadline. :) --erachima talk 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my idea is to merge each individual season into one article that covers the entire series. Each season only differs in the finer details (Such as characters, specific plot points, etc), while the overall plot remains the same. (A group of girls trying to become witches and the misadventures that follow). If we did this, then the article could be titled Ojamajo Doremi, with a small section briefly describing each season of the show, and then another section that has a list of the various dubs and brief information about them. Of course other things like production, reception, etc would also be included. I feel that the focus should use the Japanese names of the characters, places, magical items, etc, and this includes the title. And then perhaps make a seperate article that lists each episode, and then maybe a seperate article for a character list. What do you guys think? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fairly close to what I suggested on the page, though with the sections more in line with the MoS: i.e a Plot section, a characters section (that links off to a List of characters), production, reception, media (with sections for anime, manga, movies, etc as applicable). For the episode list, a single List of episodes, that maybe breaks out into multiple season lists such as is done with List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. For dealing with with Magical DoReMi, I'm inclined to treat it much as we did Mew Mew Power in Tokyo Mew Mew, were we leave the focus on the Japanese names, but of course make the appropriate mentions of the English dub names in the List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about more or less what I was thinking. I could start working on such an article for it on my user page, and after I get the bulk finished, I could propose it to replace the current Ojamajo/Magical Doremi articles. However I don't know the proper channels all of this must go through for just a drastic change. Who would approve such a large change and where do I go to post this idea? I don't want to do all this work only to have it reverted or refused. But yeah, Magical DoReMi, and all of the individual seasons would end up being merged into Ojamajo Doremi, with focus on the Japanese version, and dub mentions where appropriate (Such as dub English names of episodes on the episode list, dub English names of characters, on the character list, etc). Can you point me in the right direction? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to do the work step by step in one of the articles, after first weighing in on the existing discussions to ensure consensus follows (which I think it does, but best to give some more time). Then, if agreed, I'd do the the work in the main Ojamajo Doremi (series) article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page on the Ojamajo Doremi series article doesn't seem very active, though. PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed, trust me, but its best to weight in there too, so should someone disagree later, its "on record" so to speak. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I will post my idea on the talk pages of both the Ojamajo Doremi and the Magical Doremi articles. If most people agree on my idea, I will start work on the large Ojamajo Doremi article and merge each season into it. What do you think I should do if people disagree, or no one even replies? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If no one disagrees after a week, be bold and start working. :) I have all of them in my watch list, I believe, so while I don't have time to do much work with them myself right now, I'll keep and eye out and can offer help/guideance as needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of the advice and assistance. I have posted the proposal in both the Ojamajo Doremi and Magical Doremi discussion pages. Even just looking at them, some of my friends think that the articles do in fact need a lot of work, even some who aren't fans of the show. I'll begin tinkering with a copy of the article on my userpage in my own time so that way if after a week this gets approved (or at least not rejected ;)) I can begin updating the articles right away. Thanks again, and I'll keep you in mind for future advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychicKid1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

I've added it to the front page list, but Saint Seiya and its sub-articles could really use some help. The infoboxes need fixing. Someone made a very bad attempt at a media list break out a few days ago, which has been undone. The main article is suffering from a lot of "terminology" and all the sequels/prequels/movies were given their own articles when they really don't need them. I've done a huge merge tag, but some project input would be good here (and help with the clean up). The {{Saint Seiya}} template also needs redoing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? The currently running Saint Seiya spinoff series and movies are separate manga and films, they generally should have their own articles unless they're at a microstub level. --erachima talk 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that's actually the exception, and few franchises really warrant separate pages for each respective component. Doceirias (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per our MoS, unless they are significantly different , they do not need separate articles at all. From what I saw, they are all related in terms of plot and character, so I see no need for each component to have a separate article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Few franchises, yes. Saint Seiya being among the select. It's not quite Dragon Ball, but it's still one of the most popular franchises ever. Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas volumes place in the top ten shonen sales in Japan every time a new one comes out.

But whatever, they can be split out again if necessary once I've dredged up the information for their distinct notability. --erachima talk 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If they expand to a significant length with extensive third party sourcing, yeah, they can be split. But popularity (in Japan - the series flopped in the West) alone does not justify splitting. Clear distinctions between them sometimes does - the new Giant Robo manga got split off the article for the Giant Robo anime, largely because they share only a writer and style, but not continuity. Not being familiar with Saint Seiya, there may well be a few books that can justify a split based on that kind of logic, but it should probably be discussed on the Saint Seiya talk page before doing. Doceirias (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doceirias, Saint Seiya didn't really flopped in the West. It might have flopped in the U.S. (I don't really know), but it was very popular in Latin America and some European countries. Just see how many articles there are about it on the Spanish and the Portuguese wikipedias. :) Cattus ^talk 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly minor series in English. Which is just splitting hairs, since the point was that there are unlikely to be enough sources in English to generate articles worth splitting off. Obviously, using sources from another language is an option, but splitting the articles off before those sources are found and added would not be a good idea. Doceirias (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's like erachima said, if there's sources, they can always be split. Cattus ^talk 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I know the source that says that Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas is so popular. I would like to add it to the articles depending how their merge end.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiyosha's manga rankings, which lists the top manga sales in Japan each week. Found it while looking for Bleach sales info. (There are various blogs out there that translate the weekly rankings, if you're not comfortable navigating the pages in Japanese.) --erachima talk 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That alone doesn't mean they all should be split. Popularity isn't a reason, significant difference is. If its popular, great, sourced reception information on any of the variants goes in the main article's reception area. Splitting should be done if there is a significant difference in the variants, not just the presence of sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a separate sequel series with a new author released a decade later sounds like a significant difference to me. --erachima talk 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Significant in terms of content, not when it was released or it having a different author. Often times if a series has a manga and a light novel version, they have different authors. Doesn't make them significant enough to have different articles. Is a completely different story with no shared characters/plot to the rest of the Saint Seiya series? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a mess... I went ahead and cleaned up the infobox on the main article, reordering sections by release date (as best I could), merging in additional info from the various subarticles on volume counts and release dates, and linking out to individual chapter and episode lists. I didn't add or remove any individual components, since I'm not familiar enough with the series to judge what merits a dedicated infobox module, what should be listed in an "Other" module, and what should be ignored altogether. I'll take a look at the template in a minute, I should be able to have it cleaned up in five. —Dinoguy1000 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, the template's been updated too. I'll keep an eye on the status of the merge and further update the infobox and template as needed. —Dinoguy1000 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)