Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Anime and manga articles - Quality statistics by date

Milestones above:

• 5 Jun 2006: Assessment started.
• 16 May 2997: 5,074 articles
• 21 Feb 2008: List class introduced.
• 27 Feb 2008: FL class introduced.
• 5 May 2008: Last A class article demoted.
• 29 Jun 2008: C class introduced.
• 8 Aug 2008: Tag & Assess 2008 commenced.
• 8 Jan 2009: Tag & Assess 2008 completed.

Thought it might be interesting — G.A.S^talk 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Any hope to have the peak number of articles of the project? Thanks. --KrebMarkt 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

20 July 2009: 9,946 articles. G.A.S^talk 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For comparison percentage of B class and above article

• WP:ANIME 2.309%, 1 out 43 ratio
• WP:VG 3.540%, 1 out 28 ratio
• WP:MILHIST 5.81%, 1 out 17 ratio

Note that WP:MILHIST don't use C class. --KrebMarkt 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to note that we have:

• 2,140 biography articles, of which 0.374% are B class and above (WP:BIO 2.335%).
• 1,198 articles tagged for merger, of which NIL% are B class and above.

I do not believe that WP:MILHIST's not using C class have much of an effect on the percentage B class articles, they rather keep an article at start class (It might be possible that some of their start class articles are incorrectly assessed as B class, but I believe that this would be insignificant). They also have much more Active members.

G.A.S^talk 06:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly upload a version with a larger nominal size? Google Chrome chokes when trying to zoom (it cuts the SVG off at its original dimensions). Other than that, care to add any milestones to our news page? I have added similar items in the past, and have been planning on adding some of this stuff, once I got around to looking it up (and, on a related note, could you post a list of articles that had been assessed as A-Class? I think they should be listed for cleanup along with the demoted FAs/FLs/GAs). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to upload a new version soon, however, if you go to Commons, you may render the SVG as a PNG with the resolution of your choice. As for previous A class items, this would be a rather manual process: there were (up to) 8 A class articles at one stage--it is a matter of checking the logs for promotions and demotions (I know more or less which timeframes to check), and also checking the old A class assessment archive. G.A.S^talk 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait... I forgot I can just download the svg and edit it... new version should be up soon G.A.S^talk 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I think it probably also wouldn't be too hard for someone with the programming know-how to write a script to go through the assessment logs and spit out a list of articles marked assessed as A-Class at some point. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is actually readily available here. Seems like the previous A class articles were: Clow Cards: A-F, Clow Cards: G-R, Clow Cards: S-Z, List of Excel Saga media, List of RahXephon media, Madlax, RahXephon, List of Shin Lupin III episodes, List of Clow Cards, Excel Saga. G.A.S^talk 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, very cool! *goes off to update the news page* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW! How did you make that? NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More than likely simply by scraping data from the history of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anime and manga articles by quality statistics. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By hand (typing included). I have only used one entry per month though. I'll explain the more technical process later (remind me if I forget). G.A.S^talk 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do mean by hand? (Are you a robot?) NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No automated data scraping. The steps were as follow.

1. Type the data, per type into a OO.o table.
2. Create a stacked graph and format it appropriately. I used some hacks to graph the unassessed articles below 0.
3. Export the sheet to PDF.
4. Import the PDF into Inkscape, remove unneeded items and all visual traces of the hacks, saved as SVG.

An automated data collection method would have made it a lot easier, and would allow the graph to include the complete set of statistics, as opposed to monthly statistics.

G.A.S^talk 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is a random comment but I didn't realise that we have this much of stub articles in this Wikiproject. Amaya Sakura (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability review

Would like someone to review Acony (Manga) for notability. I can't seem to come up with anything but bookstore fronts and scanlations. —Farix (t | c) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not licensed in France -- they love Kei Toume's stuff (with good reason). But this one doesn't seem to be selling as well as, for ex, Sing "Yesterday" for Me. Will keep looking, but I'm not finding much myself. Pity, as it's excellent stuff. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that it's only recently started appearing regularly - there were a few scattered issues in 2003 and 2004, then a couple in 2006, and it only really started proper serialization last year. So it's basically a new book despite the apparent age. Doceirias (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga News entry is all about I can find. Arsonal (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Which isn't a review, but a catalog listing with an attached comments section. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional fussocking about the 'Net has netted me nothing in the way of reliable sources supporting the series's notability -- but a deal of circumstantial evidence of its growing popularity, now that it has started regular serialization. It would probably not survive an AfD today, but I am personally inclined to let it sit for a while and see what happens -- there's a load tasks of higher priority to take care of, after all. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

M.U.G.E.N

FYI, M.U.G.E.N has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a video game article, so why post it here? Also, note that almost all projects have a deletion sorting page where these notices go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I myself have only encountered it in relation to anime and manga. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't anime and manga related. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Susuwatari

Apparently, Susuwatari was recently sent to AfD and kept, but was not listed on WP:ANIME/D and didn't get the project's notice. With only three comments in the whole discussion, I don't think there was enough input to form a consensus. The article is based entirely on observations of two Studio Ghibli films, My Neighbour Totoro and Spirited Away and has no third-party sources. I'm tempted to renominate it do to the lack of discussion (it should have been relisted, but it wasn't), but I know that there is a knee-jerk reaction to having two nomination's so close together. —Farix (t | c) 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest giving it a month or so and perhaps trying to find additional sources which could be used in the article during that time. If nothing else comes up, it can be nominated again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a fair amount of soot sprite merchandise -- something to also check for. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of demographic on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

Just a heads-up, recently several users have attempted to change or remove the demographic (kodomo) on the article Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu. The latest removal even cited WP:SYNTH! (for the record, the series was serialized in CoroCoro Comic, which definitely makes it kodomo, unless I'm missing something here) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be the very same editor that attempted to get CoroCoro Comic deleted because they couldn't get Pokémon removed from the list of manga serialized by the magazine. It's the same type of editing over the same set of facts. --Farix (Talk) 04:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait... was that the only reason the article ended up at AFD? Talk about childish... =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the nominator unsuccessfully made the same edits to Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Kodomo anime and manga before the placing CoroCoro Comic up for nomination, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that. 68.89.211.93 (talk) has also made the same edits to these articles as well. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor did it again. I've placed a RFPP for Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and also pointed to Kodomo anime and manga in the same request. --Farix (Talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's back, this time also targeting Pokémon Pocket Monsters. The current problems with Twinkle isn't making things easier. —Farix (t | c) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:SYNTH since, even though it may be "stating the obvious", that isn't a valid argument on Wikipedia and so far no one has provided a source which specifically says "Pokémon is kodomo". --75.50.52.103 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source is the fact that the manga were serialized in a magazine targeted to children. What else would it a manga serialized in a childrens magazine be targeted to? It's simply stating the obvious. —Farix (t | c) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a violation of Synth, it is an accurate statement per the guidelines for indicating demographics of any manga series. Your edits have again been reverted and a warning left. You are committing vandalism and acting against consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is logically valid to arrive at the conclusion that EToP is kodomo using the facts given. However, using that argument is using logical reasoning to reach a conclusion not specifically stated in any of the sources provided. --71.144.122.123 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good try but you failed to evaluate the collateral effect of your argumentation. Using your argumentation +90% of the manga articles can't assert/prove their demographic and thus should have their demographic informations removed. Not sure you can gather enough support for a such move unless you are making pokemon a special case. --KrebMarkt 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A synthesis is "[combining] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That's not being done were as there is only one source, the children's magazine that the manga series was serialized in. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well and edit like this speaks volumes. I reworded the intro to refer magazine as a children's manga magazine with a pipe to Kodomo anime and manga. He/she then removes the "children's" part of the phrase. —Farix (t | c) 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For a bit of maybe-related history on this issue, I just ran across Category talk:Kodomo anime and manga again. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with citations

I've just created List of Haibane Renmei episodes, and I'd like some help finding reliable sources for some of the info. It's all covered on the ANN encyclopedia, of course, but I don't know where any of that is coming from, so I can't hunt it down. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Amazon, but that only helps for the English stuff.

So, specifically, I need sources for the Japanese air dates and DVD release dates. Maybe other stuff, too, Also, is my release-information too US-centric? And am I missing anything else? It's the first time I've thrown one of these together from scratch before. --Masamage ♫ 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the "lookup sources" feature on ANN yet? The main page seems to have a lot of stuff without sources provided, but I didn't look at any subpages. Other than that, ANN seems to have reviewed at least one DVD release; you may be able to source some stuff with that. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Japanese air dates lottery :(

Depending on who produced the show and who broacasted it, they can be either easy or painfully hard to find. --KrebMarkt 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That a lucky day for you Japanese broadcast schedule.

More Japanese DVDs page, Fuji TV as you have to mention the Japanese broadcasters.

Query: Is that link to Animax sufficient to prove it was a broadcasted show there?.

--KrebMarkt 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did provide him with the Japanese airdate reference; however, that list gives dates from 2003. I am assuming that is a rerun schedule as the series seems to have been originally aired in 2002. Arsonal (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask expected it was either easy or dreadfully hard to get the air date.
From Way back machine Pioneer Entertainment page => Schedule V.01 Pioneer Entertainment became the Geneon Entertainment between 2003 & 2004 --KrebMarkt 21:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are good! :) Arsonal (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you, I've worked that in. :D --Masamage ♫ 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh! While we're talking about this, I need help finding one for Baccano! Japanese air dates. I'm drafting up a possible episode list split. I'm currently using this one, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Convoluted reply. Sorry :(

Did you notice that the Wowow Bacano! website has a news box. If you look at the news entries, well when ep1 was aired ep2 preview available, when ep2 was aired ep3 preview available, and so on. Meaning on the day one episode was aired the preview of the next episode was made available, up to air date of ep12 with preview of ep13. Now if i can find a source for the air date of the last ep then it think it will be doable. --KrebMarkt 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found a webarchive of that site! first 5. Thanks for finding the site though! ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Related (and extremely stupid) question: Funimation's site is in flash. I reffed it for releases to avoid Amazon, which I dislike using so much, and then included instructions to get to the screen where I got the info. But now I realize I need the site for official episode titles. Should I place it under the general ref section, instructing how to get to the episode title screen and the releases screen or just use Amazon? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also make two separate refs, even though they're going to the same place, and have the instructions with one of them. I don't know if it's kosher or not, but you could do it. X) --Masamage ♫ 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering (it it's kosher or not to quote you). That's what I currently have. It looks kinda weird because they're directly under each other ;P. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So my next question is, should I be listing every single release date for both the Japanese and English versions? That is, dates for each of the four disks, and then for the box set? If so, do I do that for the international English releases as well, or just the American one since it was first? -- Masamage ♫ 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I'm doing with Baccano! I only list the first and last releases if there are only four. I guess the best example would be List of Last Exile episodes. It has a table for Japanese and English releases and a separate section for other releases. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so just giving the range, then? Yeah, that's a good idea. --Masamage ♫ 01:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to combine individual releases and a box set into one release table, make sure they are by the same licensor. For example, the Last Exile North American release table only includes Geneon's DVD box set and not Funimation's. Arsonal (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Another naming form for Gin Tama

The series' kanji is 銀魂 but Shueisha also writes it as ぎんたま on their site. Since it is official I tried adding it to the article as "also written as..." but it doesn't appear within the nihongo template. I thought it was hiragana, but I'm not sure. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Dinoguy1000#Another naming form for Gin Tama, just in case anyone wants to see the full prior discussion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's just a standard way to replicate rubi in a web interface, often used with titles that have unorthodox readings. Doceirias (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Template borking

The top of Ranma Saotome has some stray code apparently from one of the templates gone screwy, but I can't figure out which or how. Can someone take a look? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge templates are broken. It's not just that article, it's every article with "mergeto" or "mergefrom" templates. --Mika1h (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Innneteresting. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoshito Usui

While the remains have not been identified yet, a body was found on the mountain where he went missing, and is likely his; probably a good idea to have more eyes watching his Wikipedia article. And maybe figuring out if there's actually supposed to be a Wikiproject Christianity banner on there. Doceirias (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching it, since I was the one who added the news that he was missing. Arsonal (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured somebody was, but there have been developing stories like this that got out of hand, with IPs adding misinformation and rumors. Doceirias (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Greg Ayres. There were some IPs editing the article stating that Greg had passed away or some other crap when he was hospitalized back in February. Of course the information was completely bunk. —Farix (t | c) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are going to need editors to keep an eye on Crayon Shin-chan. I just reverted an IP editor adding information that the series ended yesterday, even though ANN is reporting that the last chapter of the manga will be printed in the December issue of Manga Town. —Farix (t | c) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Gin Tama

I have no access to the Viz's volumes from the series (I live in South America) so I tried checking in the Viz official site to confirm the English names. However, I found a little inconsistency the name from the protagonist's job. Here they are called "Odd Jobs Trio" and here "Yorozuya Trio". The articles are using "Odd Jobs Gin" which is apparently the name from Crunchyroll's subs for the anime.Tintor2 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation check at Dragon Ball Kai

Any of our resident Japanese readers have a few moments to check List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes and make sure the romaji and English translations are correct? They have been questioned on the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I went through all the episode titles and the romaji and English translations are all correct, although I did not check the whether the proper nouns like names were correct. Uhm, just one thing that bothers me is that 孫 was read as Son instead of mago, but I seem to recall from watching Dragon Ball way back when that they did say things like "Son Goku". Also, the spacing and hyphening of romaji could be improved in one or two places, but otherwise the titles are fine from a translation standpoint. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed pronounced "Son Goku". Name readings -- gotta love 'em. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding DB character names and which should be used in articles has been started at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Character Names. As this appears to be a "hot" issue that is causing some confusion and a lot of inconsistency, additional input would be greatly appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga sales reliable sources

Does anyone know of sources where you can find manga sales in Japan for things for years like the early 2000s and the 1990s? Unless I'm mistaken, Tohan and Oricon (found on the internet resources page) do not offer sales information for manga, and Taiyosha (which I found on a search this the talk pages archives) only dates back to 2008. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wario manga

I just stumbled on the net about a series of Wario manga books which have been released in Japan. I'm not sure if I'm right but it translates to It is I! It is Wario!!. Already there are two books in the series. Book one take place during Wario World and book two is Wario: Master of Disguise. They've been featured in CoroCoro Comic just like the Super Mario-Kun manga series. Here's a link about it: http://skygarden.shogakukan.co.jp/skygarden/owa/solc_tid?tid=409140474. So can we create an article about this? --VitasV (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it really needs one at this time. A section in Wario (series) seems more appropriate unless/until it has notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert to old revision

An anon user has been reverting Death Note to an old revision of some weeks ago removing lots of things[1] such as reception or other stuff. While I don't what does he wants, I suspect he is the one that splitted the live-action films section and added speculation about an upcoming film. I don't know if this counts as vandalism so I need advice. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is vandalizing and should be warned. Left him a warning and reverted his vandalizing another page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use images on Cowboy Bebop

I recently removed a fair-use image on Cowboy Bebop that I felt was excessive - it is a group shot of the main characters and thus duplicate to the cover image in the infobox - but the image was subsequently restored by another user who claims that it is a valid use of fair-use images because "The image & its caption allows for identification of the characters by name, & is thus a bridge between the text & reader that words cannot convey, it also shows illustrates the use of outdoor shots". I again removed the image, pointing out that it could be placed on the character list instead, and the same user again restored it with a similar edit summary. After going one more round, I decided to come here and ask for a third opinion - any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The image might be okay for the character article, but such images should not be used for the main article.陣内_Jinnai 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image and stated my reasons on the article's talk page. Even disregarding the image in the infobox, I don't think that was an appropriate image for the article. —Farix (t | c) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree on the above, there are bigger fish to fry O_o. G.A.S^talk 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it's just that this is one I was having trouble with at this time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All in good time.陣内_Jinnai 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor has returned and now attempting to readd the image to the article. Will need more opinions. —Farix (t | c) 10:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought...

I was just thinking about something...what if we made an online magazine on Wikipedia with our own articles about the anime project in it. I mean it may sound kind of stupid so bash me all you want. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... would this be (partially) spurred by this stuff? =D In any case, I'd probably rather pursue a news letter before an online magazine, but I rather doubt we have a sufficient amount of interest and active users to really do either with even a semplance of regularity (not to be a naysayser or anything... -_-;; ). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'd love to see the project have a monthly newsletter, I agree we have a hard enough time even getting enough consistent activity in the initiatives we already have started (collab of the week/month anyone?), and our portal is horribly neglected most of the time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Colab is actually harder imo to achive. A newsletter just needs to report on major items here and elsewhere that affect us (Such as RfCs), etc. The biggest problem is finding someone to compile it.陣内_Jinnai 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

~gentle bash~ interesting, but I suspect it would go against Wikipedia guidelines to do much beyond a project newsletter type thing, though who knows. If it was released GFDL, guess we could have something like the Signpost used to (but then would give up all rights to ever publish it, I believe). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We could publish it, and even charge for it, but we would have to do so under GFDL and/or CC-by-SA 3.0. That means that if someone else wanted to publish it and charge for it, we couldn't do anything as long as they did so under the same license and credited us for it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No one look at that link Dinoguy gave out, its too embarrassing... I made that when I first came to Wikipedia and could not write a story for beans... :P Ugghh...please DON'T! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mhehehehe... *watches Jump Guru squirm* >=D If you really want those pages to disappear, though, just say the word and I can db-u1 them for you... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You know having a magazine would actually be quite amazing. I'd like to be a part of it. Though I don't know what I'll write about. If you ever need you post a message on my talk page. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another conflict in Death Note

User talk:Cali boi16 has been splitting the live-actions sections from Death Note making the Japanese films and the American one look like different types of media. I tried talking with him, but he keeps ignoring me. Unfortunately, I'm having some issues with my internet connection so I am now a bit inactive. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He/she broke the 3RR. Is this good enough for WP:AN3 report? --KrebMarkt 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same vandal, just got a log in rather than stop. Reported to AIV again and requested page protection to deal wtih this.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I fully protected Death Note just a few minutes after you requested protection, without knowing of your request. Cali boi16 has also already requested an unblock. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cali boi16 here. Look, I'm tired of edits to my work. As a compromise I've decided to not seperate the Live-Action categories. I've instead been kind enough to develop a subcategory. And the information on Shinigami is not speculation but fact as to what the developments on the subject are. Tintor has contiuously changed my work without consulting me first. This is disrespectful and I will not continue to allow this disrespect to go on unanswered.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali boi16 (talk • contribs) 13:05, September 23, 2009

(EC) No, what you are doing is vandalism, edit warring, and completely inappropriate. You need to stop. Tintor doesn't need your permission to undo your bad edits. You've already been warned numerous times, and been reverted by half a dozen editors. Common denominator = you, so would seem to follow that the problem is with your edits and not Tintor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point for you to answer my request.

Movies should be in Live-action and not be apart (a sub-section under live actions may be warranted). Few editors mentioned it to you in the article history, all in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles).

As i'm not an amateur of Death Note so i leave to others editors to discuss the content issue, you have created.

Grrr, my angrish English sucks tonight :( --KrebMarkt 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the text show EVERY time you edit the page, namely "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Not to mention info at WP:OWN, among other places. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Cali is now back from their block and at least attempting to discuss the issues so additional views on the talk page regarding the issues of his content and desire to reformat the article would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After the last time when he insulted me, my employment, and my age, I have absolutely not desire to work with him/her. That well has already been poisoned. —Farix (t | c) 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather suspect that is why no one is answering, but now he's throwing around more thinly veiled insults and claiming that because I'm the only one bothering right now, that he is right and I'm picking on him or something. *insert eye roll* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left him another comment trying to get him to calm back down and put this in perspective. If he can manage that, I'll probably ask him in another day or so to apologize to those he insulted - I think what he really needs is encouragement, he has certainly been trying since his block expired (which is more than can be said for many new editors who start with an edit war). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Help tracing down quality cover image

After coming across the cover image for Bamboo Blade, I noticed that it isn't very much in the quality department. I've looked around, but have not been able to come up with a clean image of the Japanese cover. The image on Amazon Japan has one of those "wrappers" on it that make the image unusable. So are there any other sites that are known for their high quality images of covers? If all else fails, I've brought up the topic of replacing it with the English language cover on the article's talk page, which I have very easy access to. —Farix (t | c) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google failed to come up with the usual plentiful results, yeah; may be worth invoking the best available rule. On a side note, I understood we weren't allowed to use Amazon images without including a link to the Amazon page for the book (so people could buy it.) I may be conflating the deal Library Thing made with Amazon and the situation here on Wikipedia, but I thought we were pretty strict about scanning things ourselves, or getting them off websites that had a more liberal reuse policy. Has the situation changed? Doceirias (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

TinEye is quite useful to help find good quality images if you already have a lower quality image available. G.A.S^talk 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no restriction against using images from Amazon nor any requirement to include a link beyond noting them as the source in the FUR (same as with any other online source for a non-free image versus having access to a scanner). I'd dare to guess than the large bulk of all DVD and Book covers come from there :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with the Bamboo Blade cover is the red field. If the JPEG compression is even remotely aggressive, you will start seeing artifacts in the red field. I've found a GIF of the cover from Yen Plus's website and was able to covert it over to a JPEG without as many noticeable artifacts, and the ones that are there are barely noticeable. —Farix (t | c) 11:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cover replaced with the better quality version off of Yen Press's website. Had to set the JPEG quality to 96% or a bit higher to keep the artifacts from ruining the image. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more images with lots of JPEG artifacts. File:Yakushiji Ryoko DVD.jpg and File:YozakuraQuartetDVD.jpg. I'm noticing that all of the problem images uses large amounts of red. —Farix (t | c) 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me why I prefer PNG to JPEG. Sometimes the size increase is a little price to pay. ^_^ G.A.S^talk 05:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image file size being equal are superior to the one of the article is a difficult fact to stomach. A +100KB PNG file in a C class 40KB article is not that great. Better avoid use of PNG unless necessary until broadband, ADSL & optic fiber is more common feature around the world --KrebMarkt 11:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PNG is a lossless compression image format. In other words, the image is preserved and no data is lost. PNG is actually better then GIF in almost every case and was designed to eventually replace GIF. JPEG, on the other hand, is a lossy compression format. This makes the file size smaller than GIF or PNG, but at the cost of loosing data in the image, which results in those compression artifacts we sometime see in some images. JPEG is better for photo realistic images while GIF and PNG are better for linear art. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we have pngcrush, which can reduce file sizes even further. For most manga and anime covers, PNG is probably the way to go. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image cleanup

Spinning off from the above discussion, image renaming was recently re-enabled for admins, which means I'm probably going to go forward with a project I've been wanting to do for a while now - looking through a random assortment of images within our scope, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no real rhyme or reason to the names images are uploaded under. This has always bugged me, and now I'd like to do something about it. The simplest naming method would be along the lines of "Seriesname volume X" (manga/novels) or "Seriesname DVD X" (anime/film/etc, not so sure on it though) or "Character/Object (Seriesname)" (characters, objects, and other in-universe stuff)... Of course, though, I'm welcome to suggestions/recommendations in this regard, and I'd like to note this is something I wouldn't (probably) be actively pursuing; rather, it'd be a when-I-feel-like-it deal.

On a related note, I'll probably start deleting old revisions of FUR images in our scope where they exist and I run across them to help better comply with WP:NFCC. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through my edit history and put any manga covers I've uploaded into Category:Manga covers —Farix (t | c) 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Created Category:Anime DVD covers as a sister category. Still holding on Category:Anime promotional images. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

After populating Category:Anime DVD covers, I see that the names for DVD covers are all over the place and many are not very clear or descriptive. For DVD covers, I would suggest Series Name DVD volume (or vol) #. If it is a Blue-Ray cover, then Blue-Ray should be used instead of DVD. For box sets, it would be "box set" or some other descriptor instead of "volume #". For example, Shugo Chara! Amulet Box 1 (which is the actual name of the collector's edition art boxes). —Farix (t | c) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Being picky, but "Blu-ray" doesn't have an "e". Just making sure the consistency is the correct one. ;) The scheme sounds good. How are we differentiating covers (manga or DVD) from different regions (e.g. North America vs. Japan)? Arsonal (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, it shouldn't be necessary. Where it is, though, I would just use increasing degrees of detail until I hit something sufficiently granulated (most of the exceptions should be covered just by tacking on/inserting "English" or "Japanese" into the title, along the lines of "Series Japanese volume N" or "Series DVD box set N (English)" or something. Also, for anime-related covers, where I can't determine sufficient detail from the description to fill out the proper name, I'll probably just maintain a list for further review or the uploading of replacements whose identities get unambiguously stated. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I think it's a great idea to come up with some sort of MOS for image names, I think it's unnecessary and it will create far too much work to try and make sure all of them somehow follow the guideline. That said, I think efforts should be focused on those images which have incomprehensible names such as DCFA-00123.jpg or similar. As long as the image name is reasonably understandable, it shouldn't really matter if it follows exactly (or closely) some ideal format for the name. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Does file rename work now? --KrebMarkt 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. I haven't done any yet, but even non-admins can help by using the rename templates to suggest a better name. Then a bot comes along and renames it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering. It's this template: {{Rename media}}. Extremepro (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing the move tab on image pages (though, like Joe, I haven't actually tried it yet), so I'd assume that, yes, file renaming does work (again) now (though it's important to stress that it is admin-only at this time (but I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually gets split out to its own user right, accompanied by a separate user group that admins can grant)). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of move requests, which were successfully completed. I'm not making more requests focusing on images with cryptic names. But one image has be a bit baffled. That is File:FIRSTDVD-2.jpg, is it suppose to be File:Naruto: Shippuden season 1 volume 1.jpg?

I moved it to File:Naruto - Shippuden season 1 volume 1.jpg, since colons don't seem to work in file names. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the development of MOS guidelines for image names (though a sentence or two in MOS:AM might not hurt, as long as it's worded correctly and added in a reasonable place), nor am I suggesting an active renaming drive. As I said above, this would be something I do as I feel like doing it and happen to be looking at image pages anyways; whether any other admins in our project also do this (or other project members tag images for renaming) would be completely up to them. But yes, I agree that any specific, distinct efforts should focus first on nonintuitive image names (and if an image already has a name fairly close to the rule-of-thumb structures I'll be using, I doubt I'll bother with changing it). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here will be the "recommended" naming scheme:

• Manga covers: Series Name volume #. The series name should be the full name with spaces (if multiple words). Remember to categorize all covers into Category:Manga covers.

• Video covers: Series Name Laserdisc/VHS/DVD/Blu-ray volume #. The series name should be the full name with spaces (if multiple words). Use "DVD" if the image of the cover is from a DVD release. Use "Blu-ray" if the image of the cover is from a Blu-ray release.
  • For box sets, use "season #" if a season set, "box set" if there is only one season, or some other appropriate descriptor instead of "volume #". For example, Shugo Chara! Amulet Box 1 (which is the actual name of the collector's edition box sets). However, do not use the title of the box set if there is not consistent pattern. Use File:Ranma ½ DVD season 1.jpg instead of File:Ranma ½ Digital Dojo.jpg. Remember to categorize all covers into Category:Anime DVD covers.

• Promotional images: Series Name promotional image. The series name should be the full name with spaces (if multiple words). Remember to categorize all covers into Category:Anime and manga promotional images.

• Logos and title sequences: Series Name logo/title. The series name should be the full name with spaces (if multiple words). Use "logo" for logos and "title" for a screen shot from the title sequence. However, using a manga cover, DVD/Blu-ray cover, or promotional image is always preferred. Remember to categorize all covers into Category:Anime and manga logos and titles.

If an image already has a reasonably descriptive name, then it should not be changed to comply with this naming scheme. However, at a minimum, the image should contain the full series name.

Comments? —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Added VHS to anime for older titles that haven't been reprinted.陣内_Jinnai 03:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can i have some margin? I usually starts files with Name_vol# and after cropping & resizing i gets something like Name_vol#_Cover. As long series name and number of volume are present in the file name, it's fine to me. --KrebMarkt 06:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think underscores are wanted. Several of the ones i've seen uploaded with underscores have had them removed or replaced in the past.陣内_Jinnai 06:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Underscore simply should not be present in file names as they cause too much trouble. Wikipedia internally strips underscores out of Wikilinks, and editors like WP:AWB also automatically remove them when used to edit an article. I would also avoid add "cover" to a file name as it is redundant information. But as mentioned above, this is a recommended style to bring a little consistency to image names. —Farix (t | c) 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That remind me that we have not covered image extracted from the inside of a manga like that one

possible names: Series Name vol# Chap# page# or Series Name vol# page# or Series Name vol# Chap#

Your opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs)

Actually, MediaWiki internally treats spaces and underscores in file/page names as identical. This is why you can create pages or upload files with either (or both) in their name, and it still works regardless of what is used in links.

Now, what about character/group shots? I think individual characters are easy enough ("Character name (Series name)"), but I'm not sure on group shots.

@KrebMarkt: I'm one for completeness, so I like "Series name volX chapX pageX" or similar. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Existing Cat, new Cat or no cat for those shots? --KrebMarkt 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how many there are, and on current consensus in regards to image cats. I have no idea on either account, though, so... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple characters may have to be done on a case-by-case basis. If we have 2 images with different characters represented, say one is protagonist and the other are antagonist from a series. Other cases it might be the main protagonist and the other might be secondary characters, other case might be only the main protagonist and the second only the main antagonists. Then one might be a grouping of the main cast (protagonist and antagonists) and another would be all the antagonists. See the problem?陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would suggest for group shots is that the name of the series be included. The rest should be left to what the image contains, such as protagonists, antagonists, group 1/2/3, cast. . . —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That, I think, will require some knowledge of the series each group shot is from. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They can be left to later. Another problem will be general screenshots that depict various elements of the work.陣内_Jinnai 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Last thing to cover is light novels cover. Same naming guideline than manga cover but with a light novel cover cat? --KrebMarkt 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any existing cats for novel images? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That my question too. Does it exist if not should we create it and populate it? --KrebMarkt 16:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if none exist, we could create them, but I don't feel up to doing WP:NOVEL's work for them - we should just focus on light novels within our scope. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Cat light novel cover" will be as far as i will go. The increase of anime adapted from light novel makes a such cat relevant. --KrebMarkt 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Image renaming

For any of our admin friends who like to do a little image cleanup.

• Scan for Anime DVD covers for renaming
• Scan for Manga covers for renaming

—Farix (t | c) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add those under my name at WP:ANIME/CLEANUP#Non-article projects. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I added it myself (or rather, a more general scan that should catch other image rename requests as well). ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Akatsuka Award source?

Does anyone know of a reference, English or Japanese, that can be used to cite winners of the Akatsuka Award? It's not a major award, and not all winners go on to be notable, but a fair number of now-notable mangaka got their careers started with one -- and a fair number of mentions in articles have {{fact}} on them. I'm not having much luck digging one up. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How's this? It goes so far as to site sources at the bottom of the page.... Doceirias (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah -- thanks. That looks like it'd do nicely. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Should reception determine what subject an article is more familiar under?

There's a subject of interest to the people of this project. Please join in the discussion here so it can be at one place.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga: The Complete Guide update and manga giveaway

It's been announced that the appendix to Manga: The Complete Guide, reviews covering manga released between 2006 and April 2009, will be serialised on suvudu.com. While these reviews, appearing in a tertiary source, don't count much for notability, they do constitute the coveted "real-world coverage" of series. There is also a competition to win Thompson's second-hand manga, as he's giving most of it away. Thought people might be interested... I know I am. ;-) --Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am too. ANN's coverage, if anyone's interested. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Too bad they can only give manga to the people in continental US. Though the daily reviews will be very useful. Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well shipping can be really expensive. I purchased an old issue of the comics journal and the shipping cost was 50% higher than the issue price. --KrebMarkt 10:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And here are the first reviews. the link I've chosen should update with each entry, although I don't know where it really fits on the online resources page. --Malkinann (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does he only review manga which have been translated into English or does he include unlicensed ones as well? Arsonal (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is following what he did in the book, then only titles translated into English. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly, the updates are to add manga that have been licensed since the first edition (and account for continuing publications). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, has anyone else entered the manga giveaway sweepstakes yet? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did :3--Remurmur (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Megumi Hayashibara

Would someone please check Megumi Hayashibara. I believe an error was introduced here. I will be adding {{expert-subject|Anime and manga}} to the top of the article. -- allen四names 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Action aborted. I thought affiliated was aflicted. Sorry about that. -- allen四names 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nurarihyon no Mago‎

Nurarihyon no Mago‎ is back again and still not showing any evidence of notability. Anyone want to take a second look at it before sending it back to WP:AfD for a third time this year? —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian tried getting it speedied, but the reviewing admin said it's not substantially similar to the deleted versions, so another AfD is the route to go. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After a week, with no further improvements to the sourcing, I've sent it back to AfD. —Farix (t | c) 00:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Weiß Kreuz

This article is currently at the name with the German character, however per WP:MOS-AM and WP:NAME, it seems like it should be Knight Hunters: Weiss Kreuz per the English release name and using regular characters for the ß. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a textbook rename and redirect to me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be a bit more complicated as the manga has not been released in English. Since it's only one article and has no episode list, I'm leaning towards keeping the name. Arsonal (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If we go with the manga, per WP:NAME I think it would still need to be moved to Weiss Kreuz, at the min? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The manga is not the original work -- as I understood it, the anime was a vanity project for a group of voice actors, and the manga and such are just media mix tie ins. Doceirias (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. I don't really think that most English-speaking people will look mainly for terms with "ß" instead of "ss". Even the ß article states that it's a valid option. In the English Wikipedia, the English common usage comes first whenever a conflict in naming arises. Jfgslo (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Historically significant" mangaka?

Starting the discussion, we should have ages ago.

What defines a "historically significant" mangaka?

• I don't think being a prolific mangaka make you "historically significant" nor a mangaka must a have a large corpus of work to be "historically significant". My personal criteria is when multiple experts in Manga field concur that a mangaka is "historically significant" even the Wikipedia manga project had to abide their opinions. --KrebMarkt 14:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Who aside of "Tezuka" is a "historically significant"?

Do every single work of "historically significant" are notable per WP:BK #5?

Another question to ask would be how famous does a manga author have to be to have multi works on wikipedia even if they were not all as wide known? - Knowledgekid87 11:20, 27 September 2009 (AT)

What defines a "historically significant" mangaka? In my opinion, a "historically significant" Japanese comic book creator is essentially any author whose work somehow significantly changes the way Japanese comic books are perceived, adds something innovative to the field, is a pioneer in the field, one of his work is significantly important to the anime & manga field and/or in popular culture. I do not think that multiple experts in the manga field are the only criteria for that. They may consider an author significant, but his impact in the manga field is only known by some experts, but unknown to the rest of the society, and by the contrary, manga experts may not label a popular author as significant, but the author's works are very well known and remain a part of the popular culture for years after the work ended. In this case we simply should follow the example of American and European comic books to determine "historically significant" Japanese comic book creators. No need to have a different criteria.

Who aside of "Tezuka" is a "historically significant"? Go Nagai, who is often compared to Stan Lee. Why is he "historically significant"? Because he basically shaped several genres. First, the erotic stories in mainstream manga. Second, a more mature and obscure narrative in mainstream manga with Devilman as well as tragic endings with both Devilman and the original run of Harenchi Gakuen. Third, he basically shaped the super robot genre and did several innovations within the genre. Fourth, magical girl sub-genre was also greatly influenced by Cutie Honey. Fifth, he often caused controversies within the Japanese society, most notably with his encounters with the PTAs for Harenchi Gakuen.

Akira Toriyama and Yoichi Takahashi also probably fit with "historically significant" mangaka.

Do every single work of "historically significant" are notable per WP:BK #5? No, most definitely no. Read carefully #5: ...so historically significant... In my opinion, no modern author fits that label. This criteria mostly applies to classic authors, I believe, because "so historically significant" is above "historically significant". Just because Stan Lee and Jerry Siegel are "historically significant", doesn't mean that all their minor works are notable. As such, "how famous does a manga author have to be to have multi works on wikipedia even if they were not all as wide known?" is an irrelevant question. Each work must be measured case by case. Jfgslo (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jfgslo's well written analysis. "historically significant" will generally not apply to any modern author. Honestly, for most of the modern artists there just hasn't even been enough time to determine if they were "historical" anything. "Historically significant" is by its nature a minute percentage of the whole, not just anyone who happens to become more well known than most. And, "historical significance" should never be used as a free pass for every minor work anyone ever wrote. Evaluate them individually, same as with all authors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I also tends to agree with Jfgslo. Especially with the use of WP:BK #5. Frankly, i don't think that every single work of a Nobel prize in literature author deserves an article.

Query: Could we agree not to use or better ban WP:BK #5 as an argument to have an anime/manga article in the mainspace regardless "historically significance" of the author. Meaning even Tezuka works have to be evaluated on the own merit/notability and not just get a free pass because it's Tezuka's works. --KrebMarkt 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to ban an argument from AfD. Even when the argument is full of holes, some editors will continue to use it and attempt to associate notability with "historically significance". —Farix (t | c) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• My short list has Moto Hagio, see Essay in Comics Journal and Yoshiharu Tsuge, see [2] [3].

To give everyone some background, this topic has come up in two recent prods and an AfD relating to Naoko Takeuchi (Sailor Moon) were some editors are citing WP:BK #5 as a reason to keep an article on the four chapter PQ Angels which was never republished as a bound volume. They are claiming that Takeuchi is one such "historically significant" manga creator even though she has only had one hit series to her credit. —Farix (t | c) 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a numbers game Farix. It's the level of impact.陣内_Jinnai 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And a single creation can have that impact without making the creator equally significant. Doceirias (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but I think Farix seems to think its a matter of quantity over quality in the end.陣内_Jinnai 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, it is. If a large number of an author's work receives the academic study, then one has a case for WP:BK#5. However, just one work doesn't make an author, or manga creator, historically significant nor allow the rest of his or her works to be considered notable under WP:BK#5. —Farix (t | c) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I beg to differ.陣内_Jinnai 03:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that one work needs to be very hard to discuss without also discussing the author, then. Doceirias (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, what kind of impact has PQ Angels given to the manga world? Even if Naoko Takeuchi is an "historically significant" author, she doesn't have that much of an impact comparable to Tezuka or even Toriyama (much less to an historical figure like Laozi). If such an anecdotical work as PQ Angels is given that much value, why not give such value to the 700 manga series created by Tezuka, or an article for other small manga of historical manga authors, like Hetappi from Akira Toriyama? PQ Angels only had an small impact for a small segment of manga fans (mostly Takeuchi's fans), nothing more. For example, how many times as it been re-printed in Takeuchi's collections? How many times has it been mentioned outside of anything related to Takeuchi? Granted, it may be significant in Takeuchi's biography, but such situation does not have enough merit to have a whole article for PQ Angels as it didn't change Takeuchi's style or added anything relevant to the manga field. At most, the situation that led to the cancellation of its serialization and the impact it had in Takeuchi's work should be mentioned in Takeuchi's biography, but the manga itself doesn't have enough merit other than that. Elements like story or characters are not needed at all for such a thing. Had it been censored for a controversial topic, it may have deserved its own article, but as it is, it doesn't. Jfgslo (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as active here as I once was, but I'd certainly disagree that Takeuchi-sensei isn't as significant as Toriyama. Sailor Moon's impact on anime is beyond significant in that it caused the magical girl genre to expand from being mostly aimed at children to being a medium for more mature themes and situations. It may not have the selling power of a Dragonball Z or change animation like Tezuka's works, but it certainly was a significant change in the history of anime. (Of course, I feel silly saying things like "history of anime".) On the topic of PQ Angels, I'm neutral however since I agree that it isn't a very significant work in her portfolio. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon's impact is undeniable, but how large a role Takeuchi played in that is often debated...by the staff of the anime, for one. (At least, Ikuhara.) As far as the legacy of both works goes, almost every shonen action or gag manga running now is heavily influenced by Dragonball and Dr. Slump. I think there's a number of other shojo manga that have had a much more lasting impact on the manga aimed at that demographic. Sailor Moon's claim on historical significance is largely because it managed to air on TV in the West -- again, not much to do with Takeuchi herself. All of which may well boil down to splitting hairs, since we'd hardly create pages for each minor Toriyama work either. Doceirias (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject here, how do these people (or rather, perhaps, the definition of "historically significant") fit in with our Top-importance rating for biography articles, and are there any such rated articles that anyone feels should be taken down to High or Mid? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. Really as long as assessment is based on "what's translated in English" view.

Our perception is mostly based on commercial manga with a "Tezuka" centered view. A proof of it is Gekiga to much "Tezuka" oriented article.

I find more constructive to improve Yoshiharu Tsuge article rather to start a pointless discussion to bump it to Mid or High.

For the fun of it, i can count at least 5 biographies/long paragraphs on Yoshiharu Tsuge in French and 3 more in English. All pointing that Tsuge created the autobiographic manga or "Watakushi manga" or I-manga in reference to the Watakushi shōsetsu or I-novel.

I don't think that "what's translated in English" view is that much of a problem. After all, that criteria is mostly used for contemporary manga/anime, not older ones. Older ones that have a significant importance will be recognized by history and academic works. For example, Mazinger Z and Cutie Honey had really few English counterparts, and yet their historic significance is such that they are well known in the English-speaking world.

But you are right on focusing on improving biographical articles rather than discussing which deserve a a Mid/High rating. After all, almost no one truly knows the importance of Yoshiharu Tsuge and, how are we supposed to asses her importance with so little information in English? And even more, how are we supposed to know the significance of authors when most historic information in English is pretty weak? For example the article "History of manga" is weak and biased as an article about history, not acknowledging other authors and giving some more importance than what they really had (for example, Mia Ikumi) and completely ignores important manga (Devilman and Harenchi Gakuen for example). It barely mentions 1970s and 1980s authors, it gives examples instead of relating a chronology, and instead of true historic view it focuses on demographics. How are editors supposed to know how much "historically significant" significant has an author if we don't have enough data about the history of manga?

Having said that, I do think that the Shotaro Ishinomori article requires more attention than Clamp. In fact, perhaps for biography articles, a chronological approach (older authors go first) should be taken if the "historically significant" criteria is to be followed. Jfgslo (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ranma ½ episode lists

While updating the image names for the Ranma ½ box sets, I noticed this naming scheme with the episode lists.

• List of Ranma ½: Digital Dojo episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Anything-Goes Martial Arts episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Hard Battle episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Outta Control episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Martial Mayhem episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Random Rhapsody episodes
• List of Ranma ½: Ranma Forever episodes

These are not the names of the seasons, or even of arcs. These are titles Viz Media gave to the DVD box sets when they were released. In fact, I'm pretty confident that the title of the first DVD set is a reference to the DVD format since the series had already been released on VHS several years before. —Farix (t | c) 19:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They were also the vhs names iirc (although I'd need to check sources on digital dojo, i'm quite sure this was the vhs title). Theres no real "season" split I'm aware of in japan, aside from the show being cancelled after 18 or so episodes and then being rebranded (doing it by theme song is rather unscientific, especilly as Viz's release has some changs there)). Ranma isn't a show of long arcs, at most two episodes, then maybe a couple more in another season. These are the official naming conventions for the show in the west, if that meets guidelines or not is another matter (and offhand I don't know). If you are proposing a rename to season 1 etc, then I've no real objection if their is consensus and discussion first, and if it's done as a redirect. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the only magazine from the time I have here with me currently, and yes, Hard Battle and Outta Control at least were vhs titles before Viz started releasing dvds. Collectonian may have some older Animerica's. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually for Ranma, the first season is considered one series, and the rest is another one. But each season has a new OP and ED, at least. Still, I can't see why it shouldn't all be merged into one article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In japan yes, but theres no real distinction outside of Japan (or In North America at least). The issue with Ranma is that the Viz releases have many differences, different running orders, theme song "positions". There is nothing like the japanese relaunch. You can't lump them together, theres way to many episodes. The problem is addressing it without bias towards one or the other. Similar issues are a reason there is no chapter list (as the Viz release is two volumes less but with the same number of total chapters). Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't be merged for the same reason we don't have Bleach episodes merged; too many episodes for 1 list if they were to all be fleshed out.陣内_Jinnai 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability Checks

Now that I have a working version of AWB again (yay), working on the rest of the demographic link fixes and found a few articles that are of questionable notability:

• F. Compo - is licensed in Spain and France, so needs check for reviews there
• PQ Angels - seemingly not licensed, and doesn't even appear to have ever been published in tankōbon form
• Anastasia Club - unlicensed from what I could tell
• Sword of the Dark Ones - licensed and from the unsourced stuff I cleaned out, it seems like it might have some notability for being initially censored in the US release then reprinted
• Love Witch - single volume and apparently dropped there after
• Penguin Brothers - no licensors listed at ANN; article claimed was licensed in Indonesia but could not find support for that claim
• Judas - licensed in English, but was it reviewed? If notable, needs some general clean up
• Bitter Virgin - only appears to be licensed in Taiwan; short series.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PQ Angels was dropped when Naoko Takeuchi got married and dropped out of the manga industry. Had it continued, it probably would have gained notability. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Judas has indeed been reviewed by, among just the first screen of g-hits, Comic Book Bin, Sequential Tart, and Mania. I'm pretty sure I've seen discussion of Family Compo/F. Compo in English even, but it was almost certainly in marginally reliable sources; will see if I can track those down again. I've yet to find anything for Penguin Brothers in any language, which is a shame as it's Ayumi Shiina's best work. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Penguin Brothers is indeed licensed in Indonesia by M&C Comics. All 5 volumes are available. Arsonal (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you are curious what other manga are licensed by them, the list is here. I can translate if needed. Arsonal (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sidetracking: If you can read Bahasa Indonesia, there's a bunch of Indonesian licenses (mostly by Elex Media Komputindo) in various articles that need referencing. (I've found a few by stumbling around with a machine translator.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to to inline cite all the manga listing Elex Media (and M&C) as an Indonesian publisher? Arsonal (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

At least for those articles that have gotten as far as inline citing the other foreign publishers, anyway. If you're up for it, that'd been quite helpful. Not a high-priority task, but one that eventually needs doing. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; I'll do what I can. M&C licenses will be a bit easier as the new Elex Media website doesn't seem to list its licenses, and the Elex Media web archives are a bit unreliable to navigate. Arsonal (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"... a bit unreliable to navigate" *cough* *cough* —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Elex Media puts many (possibly all?) their licensed manga in a blog hosted by Multiply.com -- an example is here. I haven't figured out a way to reliably navigate this to find a particular series, though, nor how to reliably get there from the main site unless they link it from a news announcement. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe… such an Indonesian thing to do to use Multiply. :P I'll see what I can dig out from it. Arsonal (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought that might amuse you. For certain definitions of amuse, anyway. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolling over the floor with convulsions may happen when looking for references, usual after more than one hour looking for the same reference. --KrebMarkt 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

F. Compo was a pretty big deal at the time, and one of the author's three big hits. I'd say notable for the Japanese release alone. Doceirias (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree here, but I'll have a look for some english coverage (now I have home internet again!). Hojo is a well known author, so it shouldn't be that hard. There would probably be more good results for "Family Compo" then "F. Compo" (well, once I wade through the scnlation sites to get to the good links...).ex.org(RS) review Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PQ Angels should pass criteria #5 of WP:BK as Takeuchi and SM have been the study of multiple scholarly reviews and used as examples in several of my own college animation classes.陣内_Jinnai 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bitter Virgin Just licensed in France by Ki-oon. Up to you to do whatever you want with it. If deleted, i will probably bring it back later as a cheap way for DYK. Ki-oon have great relationship with Square-Enix and got a big chunks of its catalog. --KrebMarkt 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A few more from the MB catting:

• Demon Fighter Kocho
• Cleopatra DC
• Elf Princess Rane
• Jungle de Ikou!

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jungle de Ikou! is an interesting one. The Anime Encyclopedia aludes to it originating from one of Megumi Hayashibara's radio shows, but they made a mess of it and misnamed the show - They called it "Boogie Woogie Night", when it is of course "Tokyo Boogie Night" (its also the name of a song of hers). I believe that a source that actually gets that right might be enough to prove notability. It would depend on the quality of the source. And if not, well I could use it for her article anyway as it put that on hold to sort out additional sources. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found reviews from ANN, Mania, and THEM, but not much else. Combined with the above, does that push it over? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reviews found for Elf Princess Rane. It looks like the epitome of Not My Thing, but it's notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Demon Fighter Kocho has at least on review at Mania. Not enough for notability with that, but given it's release is 2000 and there is at least one review, I'd hold off until we can check our magazine ref library.陣内_Jinnai 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists in studio/distributor articles?

Apparently they're being removed now in favor of... Well, nothing. Articles like Mediablasters are utterly devoid of any content, whereas before there was a list of things they published. Someone explain the logic and precedent for this. Someone who isn't Collectonian, preferably. No offense. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Offense taken, but thanks anyway. Per multiple discussions, they were removed in place of categories, which is a more appropriate way of handling it. Company lists should be about companies, not just a directory list of works (which goes against WP:NOT. Media Blaster's article sucking has nothing to do with the lack of a list, but with lack of editorial interest in working on company articles. Most company articles, but particularly the ones under anime/manga, are stubby, unsourced things. A few have had some work, but not as much as they needed. It had no more content with the just, just a stub with a list shoved in. Most of the times, when the lists were done, all titles had the appropriate category done first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It would greatly help if the relevant category(s) were explicitly linked under See Also in all such articles, the way a couple have them. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, they should be...will check Media Blasters. Okay, that one was missing its category. Fixing now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some links to those discussions? The "Company lists should be about companies, not just a directory list of works" doesn't really make sense and doesn't really fall in line with what WP:NOT implies. If an article like Mediablasters has little info about the company itself, it's not directly because it has a large list of works taking up most of the space, this is sort of like removing the roles from a voice actor article just because it consists of a huge list and one paragraph about the actual person. Then there's the issue of categories being unorganized and less easy to navigate than a standard list. Also, that woefully unmaintained category for mediablasters looks like it only contains like half of the blue-linked titles from the article... as long as you're doing things like this, attention could be paid to what's replacing them. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That "woefully maintained" category contains every blue link from the article, except the half dozen that linked to disambig pages and totally different topics because people just linked the whole list without bothering to check to see if the article actually existed AND was about the topic they though it was. Categories are more organized than the list, being automatically alphabetical and without the clutter of dozens of red-linked stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they're not all there... The three MB titles I actually own aren't even categorized, and they're some of the more major series they've handled(Kenshin, Giant Robo and GaoGaiGar). Can't you use a bot or something to go auto-cat those and the few dozen others that are probably not there either? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I used AWB. I will try pulling the list from the old article, again, and see if it can pick up the rest. Looks like the first section got dropped the first time. Rerunning now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, now has 125 titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the what links here function may yield more results - is there an easy/automated way of telling which of those aren't in the category? --Malkinann (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of any easy way to tell, as AWB will only check while running through them. I can say, however, that just spot checking the number there (with redirects hidden), then 125 is approximately right, as we don't include the category on lists, just the series article. Few, if any, are missing now, and the last ones can be added manually if needed, I think, though can run through that list if others feel it is warranted just to be sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Use the Tools\List compare option. Populate list1 from the category, and list2 from the article. G.A.S^talk 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's somewhere between 201-249 articles in the mainspace that link to Media Blasters and only 138 in the category, it might be warranted. Some of them are for general things, like yaoi, or lists of episodes, but some of them are series that are needed in the category. --Malkinann (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New editions from Pokémon Adventures

It seems Viz Media has restarted publication from the manga Pokémon Adventures but this time in tankobon format so this would mean that List of Pokémon Adventures chapters can have its English dates and Isbn.I checked at Amazon and I found it said 2nd edition. Does this refer that the 1st edition was the 1999 edition from the manga published in a smaller format that wasn't tankobon. By the way, I can't find this edition from the manga in the Viz page. Nevermind, found it.Tintor2 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "2nd Edition" is standard Viz Media to mean just that. X/1999, Fushigi Yūgi and other manga republished in a different size to how they were previously got given the same treatment. When the branding changes halfway through (e.g. from Shōjo to Shojo Beat) but the size doesn't change, they don't usually get given the '2nd Edition' title, although they may be the second printing. In the "2nd Editions" they usually give the original version as something like 'First English Edition published in [year]', but it's been a while since I've checked one to remember if some included months as well. Akata (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tokyopop refs template?

Because Tokyopop insists on being retarded in their website design, we currently have to reference catalog listings instead of individual item pages for release dates. Unfortunately, this means that as T-pop adds new items to their catalog, older items move around, making it necessary to periodically check references to make sure they are still completely relevant. This task would be much easier with a (possibly dated) template adding transcluding pages into one or more maintenance categories. However, I'm not really sure of the best way to approach this - should the template be added at the end of the ref (e.g. <ref>refs content{{Tokyopop ref|date}}</ref> or <ref>refs content</ref>{{Tokyopop ref|date}}), or should it be a wrapper for the ref (something like <ref>{{Tokyopop ref|letter|page|date}}</ref>), or should it be something different? Any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deuuh. Usually there is a "date added" information in each volume page which is the very same date than the one on the catalog. See [4] [5] for example. --KrebMarkt 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh, really? Is it consistent with release date across all volumes? Even if it is, though, I'm kinda leery of relying on it because it's not clearly labeled as the release date, and it's relatively hard to find... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why making it easy for the poor wikipedia editors instead of difficult & convoluted? Time for facepalm tool.

I noticed that the general catalog doesn't show every volumes. Good example is Aria with only vol. 4 listed in the catalog list while individual volume page are still available. Another example is Chibi vampire. The catalog seems to be "everything minus currently out-print volumes" :(

Do we try to suggest them change "date added" into "release date" in their website support forum? --KrebMarkt 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at Aria, but in Chibi Vampire's case, you were looking at the "Read Tokyopop Titles" listing, which is different from the actual listing of all titles - these two links will net you all the Chibi Vampire titles (plus three novel volumes). *fire up that facepalm script even more... XD * 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitting my forehead on the nearest wall repeatedly while mumbling "wikipedia is wrong for my health" again and again. Sorry--KrebMarkt 20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't do that, it happens to the best of us! Besides, we wouldn't want you bruising that precious foreign-language-refs-finding, French-translating brain of yours, now would we? *playing the part of the insensitive friend =D * 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know if a template is going to help per se, as its basically a specialized version of "as of" for refs. While the listings do change periodically, considering TPs low licensing of late, how often does it really change when looking at the full catalog sorted by name? I do wish, though, that they would fix the site all together, but unlikely to happen, and unfortunately, they are the most reliable for their release date. I think, though, that's where the access date comes in. Does TPs current catalog get hit by Archive.org? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We did briefly have an employee of Tokyopop hanging around, but I haven't heard anything out of him since I left a message on his talk page. He claims to be an associate publisher, but I'm sure he could at least put in a suggestion for us if one of us managed to get a response from him. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Got Wayback machine returns nothing after January 2008. At worst manual archiving with webcitation.org --KrebMarkt 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Satoshi Yamamoto and Hidenori Kusaka

We need more eyes on these two articles. There is a dynamic IP edit warring on both articles over the notability tag and using ANN's encyclopedia as a source. I've already requested the two for semi-protection. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The notability tag can be removed per WP:ARTIST criterion 4c. --75.39.195.27 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the significant critical attention of the "artist" that they have won? The articles don't show it and you have yet to provide any reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it can not. Neither shows demonstrable notability and you are edit warring under multiple IPs which is a blockable offense. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this same IP as our Pokemon vandal? Pretty sure it is and has been blocked (and tagged). Will keep those and the Pokemon on my watch lists for awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an AT&T IP from Springfield, Missouri, which is consistent with the other Pokemon vandals. So it's a very good possibility that it is one in the same. —Farix (t | c) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, from his ranting on his talk page, he's confirmed he's the same guy. Tagged the IP just to keep them filed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gatchaman episodes need a check up

List of Science Ninja Team Gatchaman episodes I don't believe the episodes are numbered correctly can someone check

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Science_Ninja_Team_Gatchaman_episodes&oldid=262248102 that they match up.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for new SJ titles

There are two new titles in the Weekly Shonen Jump in Japan.

Do you know if these two sources would count as reliable sources?

• http://natalie.mu/comic/news/show/id/21144
• http://gigazine.net/index.php?/news/comments/20090917_sket_dance/
• They were the only hits on Google News for Rilienthal - both are very recent
• http://natalie.mu/comic/news/show/id/20840 - This was the only hit for Hokenshitsu no Shinigami - this is recent too

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sota Higurashi

This redirect to the List of InuYasha characters is up for deletion, as Sota was removed from the list per consensus as part of its overall clean up. Additional views needed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 28#Sota Higurashi. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon cover image discussion

Just so everyone knows, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Sailor Moon#a few questions about replacing the current infobox image with a cover scan. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Peach Girl vs. Peach Girl Authentic?

Can anyone tell me what the difference between Tokyopop's Peach Girl release versus their Peach Girl Authentic release (other than the cover) is? Is it a second edition? A new translation? Just a rerelease they did in an attempt to get more money from the series? (if anyone's wondering, I'm asking because I'm working on a chapter list for the series) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Around this time, Tokyopop used the "Authentic" or more fully, "100% Authentic Manga", label as a way to denote reissues that were not flipped to read left to right instead of right to left. I have some Magic Knight Rayearth reissues that were not flipped and read right to left. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled publication history we have here. It looks like the original Peach Girl and Peach Girl: Change of Heart (which were one series with a title change mid-stream) was reprinted with all volumes called Peach Girl Authentic, which was later followed by a "second edition" with all volumes called just Peach Girl. But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure I have that correct, and I don't know whether the second edition had a new translation. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Farix: I take it that means Tokyopop originally published the first 8 volumes of Peach Girl flipped? I only seem to have access to the Authentic volumes (up to volume 2 so far, and it's an enjoyable read, though I constantly find myself wanting to poke Sae's eyes out with a protractor), so I can't physically confirm it myself. Quasirandom: it seems the first eight volumes were released simply as "Peach Girl", and the last 10 volumes as "Peach Girl: Change of Heart". The first Authentic volume was released about a month before the last Change of Heart volume. Somewhere in there, the first eight volumes were rereleased a third time as limited-edition collectors' box sets (at least, this is what I gather from looking at release dates; and it's nowhere near as tangled as some of Dark Horse's earliest manga licenses *cough*Oh My Goddess!*cough*). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of Mixx's and later Tokyopop's titles were flipped. Tokyopop didn't start publishing unflipped manga until 2002 or so, with Love Hina and Chobits being among the earliest unflipped series. —Farix (t | c) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Those two plus Marmalade Boy and one other, which I'm blanking on, were the first four, yes. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mars and Kare Kano were among the first to be unflipped start to finish. Cardcaptor Sakura started flipped but changed to "Authentic" unflipped part way through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Mars and Kare Kano started later. Chobits and Marmalade Boy were the first to be released unflipped (April) with Love Hina following a month later. I would check my collection to see if I had the forth, but I believe it may have been Angelic Layer, which started in June. I don't know if Kodocha was unflipped as I didn't follow that series. —Farix (t | c) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

After some checking, the first unflipped Tokyopop titles are Cowboy Bebop, Chobits, Dragon Knights, GTO, Marmalade Boy, Real Bout High School and Skull Man. —Farix (t | c) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, what an interesting little discussion I sparked... =D I find it amazing that I've actually read (or have on me to read later) at least one volume from most of the above mentioned series (haven't read Angelic Layer, Rayearth, or Skull Man, but I've seen some of the Layer anime and haven't checked for Skull Man yet..). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

citation needed template in lead on Naruto

A seemingly unexperienced editor (only two edits this year, under 15 total) has twice added a citation template to the lead for information already present in the article. I removed it the first, it was inserted again and I have reverted again with a better note in the summary. I've asked for talk page discussion if the user disagrees still, but some other input would be nice. I don't object to the disagreement, but I don't agree with it all the same. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the discussion. Where is it? Goodraise 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So far just in edit summaries, but I asked them to start a discussion if they still disagreed. I'm just after a second opinion atm, I'm still not in full editing mode so might be being silly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sublist formatting for Template:Graphic novel list

So, the main thing that kept me from ever working on a {{Graphic novel list}} sublist feature to match {{Japanese episode list/sublist}} was being unsure of what type of output would be preferred - something like what is used on List of Naruto manga volumes, or something more like List of Pokémon chapters#Pokémon The Electric Tale of Pikachu!? The Naruto style has some problems with it - not all series have volume titles, for one (in my experience, volume titles are actually used by a minority of series), and, unlike {{Japanese episode list}}, {{Graphic novel list}} is explicitly designed to be used for lists of series of any language, not just Japanese. There is also a balancing issue - if a series is unlicensed in English, but still has volume titles *glances towards KochiKame*, the left side of the table has two cells per row whereas the right side has only one (and, where a licensed series only has English volume titles, the situation is reversed). On the other hand, the format used on the Naruto list has been in use since at least 2007, as memory serves, and has spread to several other volume lists in the time since then.

Perhaps a better way to approach the issue (yes, I just spent a paragraph presenting reasoning only to start over =D ), though, is first determining what information the condensed table should present: volume number and original and English release dates and ISBNs are a given, but what, if anything, else should also be presented: volume titles (c.f. above concerns)? Chapter numbers (think like someone saying "volume X contains chapters Y through Z - this was suggested for the Naruto list, and seemed to have approval, but was never done)? Any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you're asking for is thoughts, here's one: {{Graphic novel list/sublist}} already has three different kinds of output. Goodraise 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew about that template, but had no idea its output was that flexible (I've never looked very closely at it, even though it's been on my to-do list almost since you created the template). I probably should have mentioned it in my original message at any rate; thanks for pointing it out. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter numbers should be fine. For most titles this just X-Y. A few odd ones like School Rumble exist though where there is need to list multiple chapter types. Items like ToCs, explanations of honorifics, cultureal and translation notes, advertisments, shouldn't be listed. Preview chapters, I'm not sure of. The other thing might be page numbers and reading format (left to right, right to left) when the volumes reverse midway through for those that did, publisher for those that switched publishers midway.陣内_Jinnai 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Takeo Watanabe

I think I have taken this article as far as I can inside my user space. Anyone who has been working on the Music of Cutie Honey article as well as anyone from WikiProject Composers may be invited to edit once I have finished the move cleanup. -- allen四names 06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have finished moving the article Takeo Watanabe. As I wrote before feel free to invite anyone from WikiProject Composers to edit. -- allen四names 06:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Light novel covers

Ok,

I created Category:Light novel covers for light novel cover files. Please feel free to populate it. I'm sure to have missed a lot of covers. --KrebMarkt 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives of Central Park Media official website

After discussing whether the web.archive.org archives of the former Central Park Media official website should be included in the article talk page, I have started a discussion on whether to include the archive link to the official website of Central Park Media, a defunct company, in its external links section and infobox. Its discussion page is here: Talk:Central_Park_Media#Archives_of_Central_Park_Media_official_website WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third discussion on this topic, the first between the two of us, the second being the lengthy discussion on EL, and now you're starting a third. How many more nos will it take before you finally give up this issue? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, the latest discussion concluded that in this instance there should be a discussion on the article's talk page. What I am doing is appropriate dispute resolution. Please wait for the responses of other users. The discussion she is referring to is here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org. No, there is no blanket ban on web.archive.org external links, so the next step is individual discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach episodes (season 10)/archive1

User Diaa abdelmoneim has been commenting on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach episodes (season 10)/archive1 saying that the list needs things that are against the manual of style from manga and anime. I have no intention of working on that unless it is discussed that, but still, I think that was already discussed last year but I don't know where is such discussion archived. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. He is trying to get it to match a television season list, which is both impossible and inconsistent with anime lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Magazines from Pokémon Adventures

The Pokémon Adventures manga is published by Shogakukan, but the main article says it has been published in three magazines: Shōgaku Yonen Sei, Shōgaku Gonen Sei, Shōgaku Rokunen Sei. Anime News Network says it is only published in Shogakukan no Gakushu Zasshi (I had no idea there were so many magazines). There is no article for those magazines so I can't find a source for it. Is there an official site for those magazines? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have used the Japanese article as a basis. The Wikilink for the magazines above point to the Japanese article on Shogakukan no Gakushu Zasshi. From what I could decipher from a machine translator, there are some sort of separate editions for children in kindergarten through sixth grade. Specifically for Pokémon Adventures, it seems to have only been released for the fourth through sixth grade audience. Arsonal (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those are indeed separate magazines for, respectively, 4th, 5th, and 6th graders (Shogakukan also publishes separate magazines down to 1st grade, and flipping through an edition of one is a trippy experience I might add). Shogakukan no Gakushu Zasshi is the overall title for the series of magazines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone feel like adding these to the magazine list? *notices everyone staring at me* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source than can be used for the article? I could only source it is being published in shogakukanTintor2 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, but here are the websites for the 4th grade, 5th grade, and 6th grade magazines. Maybe someone else can look at it. Arsonal (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Naruto seasons

A discussion over the seasonal splits for Naruto can be found here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seiyu need attention

Well multiple editors are questioning the notability of the subject along with WP:OR & WP:V issues and more participation of others editors is welcome.

I answered to the raised issues as much as i could but more opinions the better. --KrebMarkt 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hakusensha Athena Newcomers' Awards

Is this article needed? There's no information in the article, so I was wondering whether the article should be expanded or be deleted. Amaya Sakura (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Hakusensha. If someone can later expand it reliable sources showing why its notable, versus the usual company "award" that almost all manga companies do, then it can always be recreated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Just one more question, how can I check whether it's notable or not? Amaya Sakura (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, see if you can find significant coverage of the award in reliable, third-party sources. In this case, Hakusensha press releases and the like would not able to help establish notability (though can be used to fill out an article or mention the award on the page). I'd generally suggest starting on the Hakusensha article with a section on the award and see what reliable sources you can find to expand that section. If you find the award does have significant coverage (i.e. not just trivial mentions and reprints of press releases), then it might be notable enough for split. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Hina - Hinata Girls Song Best

This is up for a PROD I know but has anyone checked Kanji references on the article? It was produced by a former major anime company Geneon. Id remove the prod if I knew the references were there. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Geneon is still around, just not in North America. --十八 01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So there are no Kanji references then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was produced by Starchild, Geneon just licensed and published it in North America (might be a bit pedantic, but it's a important difference). I wouldn't worry too much, I'm going to merge them into a discography article. Farix doesn't see the point, but with 13 singles/albums theres plenty of scope for an article on all of them. We currently have an discography article for a much less well known series (at least in the west) at FLC that looks like it will pass, so it's not like impossible to make a good article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but are there references on the albums? It would be nice to do a discography with a brief summary on the albums (Does not have to be a whole article). Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are yes, just not much in english despite their North American release. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Things that can and can't be included in List of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters

This came to my mind last night: should List of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters also feature the chapters from the spin-offs Yu-Gi-Oh! R or Yu-Gi-Oh! GX? R is more connected to the original Yu-Gi-Oh! than GX, but I was searching for opinions. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend just including everything - that's what I'm going to do with List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 media after I refactor it into a chapter/volume list. If any of the spinoffs end up being of sufficient length, they can be split into separate chapter lists later. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done (though these volumes still need the chapters).Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For interest sake, the following articles within our scope needs to be reviewed. G.A.S^talk 04:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• .hack//Sign - delisted
• Air (visual novel) - kept
• Azumanga Daioh - kept
• Boogiepop series - delisted
• Clannad (visual novel) - kept
• Death Note - delisted
• Giant Robo (OVA) - delisted
• Golden Boy (manga) - delisted
• Hibiki's Magic - kept
• Higurashi no Naku Koro ni - delisted
• Kanon - kept
• Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl - kept
• Lupin III - kept
• One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e - kept
• Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru - kept
• Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume - kept
• Sailor Jupiter - delisted
• Sailor Mars - delisted
• Sailor Mercury - delisted
• Sailor Moon - delisted, GARed, and relisted
• Sailor Venus - delisted
• Shuffle! - kept
• Strawberry Panic! - kept
• Suzuka (manga) - delisted
• The Big O - delisted
• Yotsuba&! - kept

I really should finish the Lupin ANN ency replacement! Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep...though, it will be awhile before I get to the Ls ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TBH if the refs are the only problem, it can be "delayed" for a bit I would think. If the refs aren't the only problem, it's less of a worry! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless its just absolutely hideous, I usually give 1-2 weeks, at the minimum, for fixing any issues that might result in loss of GA status. Long as someone is actively addressing the issue once the review starts, I'm fairly cool about delaying for repairs :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But we should revive the ANN encyclopedia replacement project up top, I suspect.... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Touch date to avoid archiving -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first post is already postdated to prevent it. :) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought Dandy had changed it per the note below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I clearly stated the ANN topic :P I didn't actually consider this one. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for reading too fast :P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Another one kept. Only a few left. After The Big O closes, I will not be doing any more of the anime/manga GARs, so no idea how long it will be before the last ones are reviewed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a shame; I was hoping to get the others done before the end of the summer (well, at least the three left where I was the major contributor ;) ).--十八 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Other 3 Senshi articles were delisted by someone else therefore as the last 3 articles in the sweeps I changed the date so this can finally be archived.陣内_Jinnai 01:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Inumaru Dashi

How many sources do I need to find to have Inumaru Dashi restored?

I found a Mainichi Shimbun article all about the series here: http://mainichi.jp/enta/mantan/manga/hajime/archive/news/2009/03/20090323mog00m200006000c.html - but I don't know what is being said in it. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just an introduction spot explaining what its about and other stuff; nothing really notable about the article.--十八 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Was the article written by Mainichi Shimbun editors? Wikipedia:Notability (books) explains that a book can be considered notable if it meets at least one of a following of criteria. One criterion:

"The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. "

"The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an author for the article, but regardless the article does not satisfy "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." There is not critical commentary that I can see, it just describes what its about.--十八 01:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So I need one more source, and that one has to have critical commentary. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Crilley on working for Dark Horse Comics

For anyone who doesn't know, Mark Crilley, the author of Miki Falls, has been maintaining a YouTube channel for some time now where he posts how-to-draw tutorials (very informative IMHO). Earlier today, he posted the first in a series of videos talking about his newest series and working for Dark Horse Comics, and he stated that he will be answering questions in future videos as well. Seems to me like a good opportunity to get some easily sourceable material for relevant articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember him mainly for his Akiko on the Planet Smoo. Fun series. I agree this would be a useful resource for good material for articles.  :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Miki Falls is the only series of his I've read, and he advertises it in just about every video (in his defense, it is a good series), so that's why I mentioned it. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inuyasha New Series

Inuyasha is finally coming out with new episodes, finishing the story out. It's apparently called Inuyasha: The Final Act (犬夜叉 完結編, Inuyasha Kanketsu-hen). The Inuyasha page needs to be updated if anyone (with some good wiki experience) can do it.

The InuYasha page has already been updated with the information about the Final Act. It was updated weeks ago. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Voltron or Voltron:Defender of the Universe

I was thinking should the main Voltron article be renamed Voltron: Defender of the Universe as it'a even states the 80s show is called Voltron: Defender of the Universe. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is an article about the robot, then that should be at Voltron. Otherwise, Voltron should redirect to Voltron: Defender of the Universe as that is the name of the show in the States. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nihonjoe, unless you can go through pretty exhaustive lists of RSes to show the use of Voltron is used more than Voltron: Defenders of the Universe. Even then, for disambig reasons, it might still be better.陣内_Jinnai 07:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ComicMix RS?

For those who can't access the website

Brian Alvey, Chairman "ComicMix is the most exciting thing I've ever been a part of," says Brian Alvey, Chairman of ComicMix LLC. "What's cooler than comics? It's the ideal combination of content, technology and community. The readers, the creator, the advertisers -- everybody benefits." Alvey designed the first TV Guide website in 1995 and was the senior technical member of the in-house team that built the first BusinessWeek site later that year. He continued designing and developing dozens of sites for companies including BusinessWeek, Intel, Capgemini, J.D. Edwards, Deloitte & Touche, VentureReporter.net and The McGraw-Hill Companies. The closest he came to drawing comic books was being the art director of three print magazines. He is the co-founder and President of Weblogs, Inc., the largest blog publishing company and home to such blogs as Engadget, Autoblog, Joystiq, That's Fit, TV Squad and Slashfood. Time Warner's AOL purchased Weblogs, Inc. in October 2005 and acquired his Blogsmith platform in November 2006. Blogsmith is the enterprise blogging platform which powers the Weblogs, Inc. network, TMZ and dozens of other blogs. He is currently a vice president for AOL and the chief architect of the new Netscape social news site. Mike Gold, President and Editor-in-Chief Mike Gold is a 30-year veteran of the comic book industry, having served as group editor and director of editorial development for DC Comics, founder and editorial director of First Comics Inc., and publisher of Classics Illustrated. Prior to ComicMix, Gold had been editorial director for ArrogantMGMS, creating intellectual properties and overseeing media and ancillary rights and packaging comic books published by numerous comic book imprints, including Image, Acclaim and IDW. He was a pioneer in the creation of an American market for graphic novels, and edited more than three-dozen graphic novels and anthologies, including the bestsellers The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told, Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters, The Joker: Stacked Deck, GrimJack: Killer Instinct, Jon Sable Freelance: Bloodtrail and American Flagg!. In addition, Gold has an extensive background in the media and in the youth social services field, having been a broadcaster and radio personality, director of communication and education for a major Chicago drug abuse prevention program, cofounder and director of communication of the National Runaway Switchboard, and creator, and managing editor of Video Action magazine. He has been an author and editor of, or contributor to, more than one dozen books, including How To Draw Those Bodacious Bad Babes of Comics and How To Draw Monsters for Comics (both with artist Frank McLaughlin) and The Desktop Publishing Bible. His work has appeared a wide range of newspapers and magazines, including The Chicago Tribune, The Realist and the British edition of MacUser magazine. Mr. Gold is the recipient of numerous awards, including the prestigious Comics Buyers' Guide Award as favorite editor and the Golden Apple Award for best comics limited series (The Longbow Hunters). He has also served as a consultant to the Organic Theater of Chicago (home to Dennis Franz, Joe Mantegna, Ray Bradbury and David Mamet), the Stratford Connecticut Shakespeare Festival Theater, to numerous political efforts, and to The Child Care Center of Stamford, an award-winning Head Start and early childhood education program, as well as a media coordinator for the Chicago Conspiracy Trial, the trial of the century of 1969 -- 1970. "I've always been attracted to new media," said Gold. "ComicMix will bring exciting, edgy graphic story-telling to a new generation, and help the present generations keep from being inundated by their comic collections. While offering a wide variety of great new comics and an onslaught of previously published stories, I think by offering readers a way to save storage space, ComicMix will be saving a lot of marriages." Glenn Hauman, Vice President, Operations and Production Manager Glenn Hauman fulfills one of the unspoken staffing requirements at a comics company. "Dwayne McDuffie at Milestone, Mike Richardson at Dark Horse, Denis Kitchen at Kitchen Sink, Jim Shooter at Marvel and Valiant-- every comics company needs to have at least one ridiculously tall guy on it. With me on board, we'll have somebody who can change light bulbs and play center for the inter-company baseball league." When he was in junior high school, Glenn took art lessons from John Buscema, the legendary (and quite tall) Marvel Comics artist. "I knew I could never draw like that that," he says. Instead, he found other ways to make comics his career, starting with working in a local comic shop in high school, and then the production department at DC Comics. He has fifteen years of experience in publishing, including work for Random House, Simon & Schuster, DC Comics and Apple Comics. Mr. Hauman has worked as a graphic designer, editor, photo retoucher, CD-ROM producer, story consultant for films, and radio show co-host of "Destinies - The Voice of Science Fiction" on WUSB 90.1 FM at SUNY/Stony Brook. His latest Star Trek e-book, Creative Couplings, has been getting press coverage for its portrayal of the first Klingon-Jewish wedding. In addition to Star Trek, he's written other licensed tie-in works for X-Men and Farscape, and urban fantasy for Baen Books. He has been a featured speaker on the future of publishing at numerous industry trade shows. He was a founder of internet pioneer companies BiblioBytes, Hell's Kitchen Systems (bought by Red Hat in 2000), and Lot Auctions. Most recently, Glenn has been working as a webmaster, assistant editor, and production manager for arrogantMGMS, a comics packing company now involved with ComicMix. Glenn manages their GrimJack.com, JonSable.com, MundensBar.com websites; he also runs the websites for comic book pros PeterDavid.net and BobGreenberger.com. "My career is the definition of varied, and the one constant is that I find myself doing something new that still draws on past experiences," Hauman said. "I can't imagine something that draws on all the things I've done and all the things I want to do more than ComicMix."

Is ComicMix RS? The About Us page. Also Andrew Wheeler claims here to be "a publishing professional for nearly twenty years, with a long stint as a Senior Editor at the Science Fiction Book Club and a current position at John Wiley & Sons." Is that enough for his comments to be RS? Extremepro (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't access to the website :( --KrebMarkt 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't really think so, in general, for our project. While they certainly meet the requirements for SPS, they don't appear to be relevant except maybe on the most broadest of our articles like manga as their backgrounds seem exclusively western-formate. Basically its not saying they aren't experts, just not experts in the anime/manga field. Alan Greenspan is a RS for economics, but that doesn't mean he's a RS for video games.陣内_Jinnai 07:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research season split

Wonchop split episodes from List of Reborn! episodes (season 5) without a source of another season taking place. He also created another episode list. Am I suppose to undo the edits he's done or leave it be? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it would be acceptable if there was a change in theme song. It's not the most scientific method, but it's generally a reliable one (though this is a matter of debate). A quick look suggests that the same opening theme seems to be used, so I don't have an issue with you reverting. The difference seems to be the ending song, this isn't so reliable as season 5 seems to use several songs in the rest of the eps anyway. It's also failing WP:Crystal as the eps haven't aired. Ask for a source, revert if there isn't one. I see they've also copied general references that aren't to do with the episodes actually in the new article... Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the user is not sure about the division; in his edit he wrote "Episode 154 onwards can probably be considered as season 6 at this point".Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm givin it a few more hours before I undo his edits. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source to confirm it is an new season, I would undo and redirect the new list to the old and explain to him that a source is needed to confirm a new season has started, not just guessing based on the theme (which is a very bad way to guess a "season" division, as there are too many series that change themes and have no season divisions at all, and visa versa. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates formatting

Thea airdates from List of Black Cat episodes are formatted in day-month-year style. I thought of changing them to month-day-year style, but I noted that they are done in a Template:Start date format. Is there a way to change it without removing such template? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove the |df=y parameter from the template. That's what's making it switch formats. The default is month d, year :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Only in North America. Everywhere else it's either dd-mm-yyyy or yyy-mm-dd. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant the default for the template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MangaCast used as reviews

Can MangaCast be used as reviews? For example here's a series of Ed Chavez's reviews in audio form. I'm not sure how to ref them and whether the reviews are RS. Extremepro (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The reviews are of course reliable sources for the opinion of Ed Chavez. Whether his opinion should be given any weight in Wikipedia articles is another question. Having never heared of Mr. Chavez myself and seeing as there seems to be no Wikipedia article about him, I'd go with "no" by default. As for citing them, I'd use {{cite video}}. Goodraise 02:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't look. I found that in 5 seconds. Wikipedia lacks a lot of articles on people, like Jason Thompson, author of Manga: The Complete Guide.陣内_Jinnai 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I didn't look (I said "by default" for a reason) and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. Goodraise 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at least avoid answer that could be misinterpreted. Your first post sounded like a definite "No" and not everyone would catch the nuance your answer. --KrebMarkt 05:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Chavez is RS as he has been a critic, a translator and now a publisher on manga field. There are on bunch of news focused on him in ANN news and he was once interviewed in Right Stuf's Anime Today podcast. --KrebMarkt 05:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; Ed Chavez definitely has the credentials. Other MangaCast sources may not, though. Doceirias (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We cite Ed Chavez's reviews all the time, and news sources show he's known in the field. I think his podcasts count as a reliable self-published source from an expert. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was already on our online RS page, but he's nowhere to be found (or am I just blind?). Any opposition to adding him to the Individuals section? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

~poke~ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead silence = consensus :p --KrebMarkt 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll get right on this then. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Darker than Black

Should Darker than Black and Darker Than Black: Ryūsei no Gemini be merged? Similarly, should List of Darker than Black: Ryūsei no Gemini episodes be merged into List of Darker than Black episodes? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Darker Than Black: Ryūsei no Gemini is a direct sequel, and not significantly different from Darker than Black. Neither series is long enough to warrant splitting the episode lists either. I saw the episode list earlier and made a tweak to it, but didn't have time to check it all out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Logo images?

Do we have a clear project consensus to replace anime/manga franchise logo images with book covers or DVD/BR covers or other more appropriate images?

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. When the manga is the primary work, a manga cover should be used. While for an anime, either a DVD cover for a promotional image should be used. A logo really adds no value to the article and generally has a much harder time withstanding a fair use inspection if one is brought up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That removes my last scruples to toss those logo and replaces them with more proper images. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're even asking. "Project consensus" is irrelevant. If you think you can replace the images with better ones, go ahead. Goodraise 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Project consensus is not "irrelevant". The project is the primary group of editors with interest and knowledge in the topic. The consensus on images, and other aspects of the Anime/manga MoS are not just decided randomly or through personal preferences, but by bringing together relevant Wikipedia guidelines and the community consensus/feedback from peer reviews, GAN, and FAC/FLCs discussions. It has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with ensuring articles are consistent, well-formed, and are at least aimed at being the best they can be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. "The primary group of editors"? That's just what WP:OWN is about. No matter how much one or multiple editors contribute, it gives them no more say than anyone else. As for the rest of your reply: Don't confuse whatever "project consensus" means with the MOS-AM, which is a style guideline and, while mostly edited by members of this project, not part of WP:ANIME. Goodraise 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point, Goodraise - and have seen some people clearly think that their project trumps general style and policy on WP -- but I think in this case it's more "what have the members of the project thought is the best way for the circumstances of the articles they work on", and perhaps the OP just used the wrong words. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Never ending discussion

The discussion from Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!#Section break 1 still continues with users wanting to add the internet parody from Yugioh to the article. More comments would be good.Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of notability, but of verifiability and reliable sources. Of the entire section, only the first two sentences were cited to a reliable third-party source. The rest of the section was based on original research. —Farix (t | c) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is also an open request for RSes for a potential article either specifically on YGO:TAS, or on abridged series in general. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gall Force cleanup

Some user has been splitting the content of Gall Force into separate articles. Unfortunately the user has been using improper titles for the articles (i.e: "Rhea Arc" instead of "Rhea Gall Force" or "Earth Chapter Arc" instead of "Gall Force: Earth Chapter"). To be honest, I'm not even certain if the article was needed to split, since I'm no expert of the series, I'm leaving everything to anyone from the anime and manga Wikiproject. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If anything, it should be split into an article for the first four (which were released as the same series), then Rhea, and then New Era. Ten Little Gall Force belongs with the first series as it's a spoof "making of" bit showing the characters in the series as actors portraying the characters. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref from Magazine

Does anyone have the 39th issue of Dengeki hp (backnumber)? I'm looking for information on the release of the first Baccano! drama CD. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Poke* Well, any info regarding that drama CD would be fine. I can't find any. If anyone does go looking it is the CD released March 31st, 2006. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a suitable ref. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Anime Original Licensed in America

since there is a list of manga liscensed in America, shoudlnt we make one for OVA and Anime originals aswell?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There should not be any list of manga licensed in America. There is a list of manga licensed for English release, but there should not be one for any specific country, which would ooze systematic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Bread Ninja meant an equivalent article to List of manga licensed in English, a hypothetical List of anime licensed in English? BTW, while looking for an equivalent article, I found articles for List of anime in the United States and List of anime theatrically released in America. --Malkinann (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of anime licensed in English was discussed and I think planned, no idea where it went from there. Those other two...~pretending she didn't see~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, they could be merged to create the initial version of the hypothetical List of anime licensed in English. I think whoever was doing the formatting on the list of manga may have gotten tired? (Can't say I blame them) --Malkinann (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tired, yes. It's on my back burner, anyway, to continue cleaning the manga list and swotting it into shape, but not soon. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of these have been on my to do list for a while now (and both of the anime lists have been on my watchlist for a similar period of time); I've just not gotten to them yet (blame it on being tired, or scared of all the work, or whatever =) ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well i'll look at Bandai and VIz's official websites see what anime originals they have, possibly manga entertainment might have some aswell. reason why i ask for an anime and OVA list was because whenever i typed it up it would redirect to the anime pageBread Ninja (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

new page layout proposal

I wanted to give our project page a revamp instead of incrimental changes. Since the nature of the alteration is very substantial, rather than just upload and get people thinking i've been a little too bold I'm proposing it here. User:Jinnai/AnM. Feel free to tweak it and comment.陣内_Jinnai 08:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the project page needs a revamp, I'm not sure I can support the new version. I don't like the 3-sided border, the headers are too large, and lessor important content (to me) is being overly emphasized. I'm also not seeing any navigation now at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I like the two-column format, which at least on this computer means narrow content scrolling a long way. Also, the several inserted scrolling regions (iframes?) are annoying, especialyl when what I want is at the bottom of one -- or even when I want to find out if it's there at all. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Collectonian and Quasirandom. The scrolling regions further leads to a situation where the two columns height does not stay equal as the window's width changes (resulting in even less space being allocated to important items). Not to mention that you made Wikipe-tan even smaller... G.A.S^talk 15:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fourth the above opinions (but not reduce them by/to ¼, I hope) - this is something I also have been thinking about for a while, but never bothered doing anything with before. I think what needs done is figuring out what stuff is actually important enough for the project to be placed on our front page, and then moving everything else to the various subpages. Once that's done, we can start looking at how to spruce it up more. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well everything on there is on the main page. What doesn't really belong there? As for the scrolling, we have so many GAs/FLs that we either need to start collapsing them or impliment some kind of scrolling as they really bloat the page.陣内_Jinnai 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's something that doesn't belong on there per se, I'm merely saying that a review wouldn't hurt. Creating new project subpages also shouldn't be ruled out. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it breifly 3 items come to mind: 1 a lot of the more detailed info on the cleanup TF could be removed from the main page, the stubs could be moved or consolidated and helpful guides/tools could be moved. However that doesn't mean the page doesn't need work still; the biggest sections are the ones most project pages have in the main page, their good/feature articles (as well they usually showcase DYK and sometimes wikipedia 0.7/1.0 articles as you try to put your best stuff forward.陣内_Jinnai 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Hiromu Arakawa

I don't know too much about how authors are rated on importance, but Hiromu Arakawa is rated on midclass by this project. Shouldn't it be changed to low class? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you need to decide yourself. Goodraise 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be low class. Fullmetal Alchemist may be a very popular series, but I don't know if her other works are also popular enough to leave it as mid-class.Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Zack Davisson's Japan Reviewed Blog - Is it a reliable source for reviews?

Hi, just popped in to ask whether this site is a reliable source since the 'About' page said that "He has also served as a “pop culture expert” for National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” and was selected as one of six reviewers selected for Amazon.com’s Holiday Customer Review Team for 2008.". I noticed this website when an IP user added his review for Julietta Suzuki's manga, Karakuri Odette. Amaya Sakura (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, it meets WP:RS as he is a verifiable, published expert. So the site can be used, but only for his reviews/opinions and not making any statements of facts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Absorb WP:YUGIOH as a workgroup?

For anyone who doesn't know, Yu-Gi-Oh! started out as a manga series, and various manga and anime series are still a significant part of the franchise. In addition, the Yu-Gi-Oh! project has been inactive for several months now. Any objections here to absorbing it as a work group? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just left a note pointing back to this discussion at WT:YUGIOH#Absorbed as a WP:ANIME work group?. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The project is indeed laregely inactive. The last two topics on the project talk page other than yours were started by me and dealt with important issues (Notability and sourcing) and yet got no responses in over a month. So I think a merger is just fine. If the project bounces back and it's articles get a lot of traffic after the merger, we can always unmerge. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Series specific projects are largely frown upon now anyway, so remaking as a work group would be more appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with making it a task force :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. There's been a trend to consolidate less active wikiprojects into workgroups and dissolve workgroups that are inactive (by that i mean their output level, not their membership level) in other projects.陣内_Jinnai 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what needs to be done for this to happen? I'm not seeing any opposition, so might as well do it... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

*poke* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means. This would, amongst other, involve creating a new |Yu-Gi-Oh!-work-group= parameter for {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} and removing {{WPYUGIOH}} on articles' talk pages (and, if needed, by adding other relevant WikiProject templates), moving all existing WPYUGIOH pages to sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox, moving the existing categories from category:WikiProject Anime and manga descendant projects to category:WikiProject Anime and manga work groups, updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yu-Gi-Oh! accordingly. (Good luck!) G.A.S^talk 18:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started on the necessary work - there's functionality in the banner sandbox (but I have yet to try implementing WP:YUGIOH's assessment stuff because I really don't know how to approach it), the project page (and subpages) have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yu-Gi-Oh!, I've added a link to the project navbox, and I've recategorized WP:YUGIOH's category. The task force page itself still needs to be updated to show that it is now a work group, and I'm not sure of what to do with {{Yu-Gi-Oh!Tasks}} - thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is worth the trouble to impliment the seperate assessment schemes for the taskforces... WP:YUGIOH has only ~85 articles, and I do not quite fancy assessing every taskforce's articles. Only their importance will be different anyway, and for WP1.0 purposes that is measured against other projects (i.e. WP:ANIME's) assessment of the taskforce's main article(s) (Or that is what I last understood). I have not yet considered the tasks page's fate... Maybe put it only on the taskforce's main page? G.A.S^talk 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would have done with their assessment, except that there may be room for WP:GUNDAM to get separate assessments at some point - that group is at least semi-active, and they have a large number of articles under their scope (even after all merging and cleanup is done, it'll still be a pretty large number, compared to our other franchise task forces, at least). The problem with the tasks page is that it gets transcluded in the banner - I don't know if we really want to just remove it from all the talk pages like that, then. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing Translated titles

Should I remove the translated titles from dubbed episodes in the List of Case Closed episodes list? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the two titles are completely different like in Digimon Adventure 02, use the official dubbed version title. Arsonal (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say keep them, as it seems like the dubbed titles are very different from the translated, in most cases? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am using maina.com for sources for Robotech and space yamato are they ok? [6] [7] Dwanyewest (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to cite with them? Goodraise 09:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Volume 27 from Gantz

The Shueisha site says that volume 27 has 238 pages. Since previous volumes have a different number of chapters, I will wait to confirm the chapters in order to add them at List of Gantz chapters. Normally s-manga has an online preview showing the volume's index but I can't find it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FL removal candidacy of List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes

I have nominated List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsonal (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Undoing redirect naming changes with Go Nagai

User Dngnta has moved the Go Nagai article to Gō Nagai‎. As I understand Wikipedia:NAME, the name to be used in the title must be recognizable and easy to find, and should use the most common English-language name of the person. Go Nagai‎ has never used "Gō", neither any of his published works in any part of the world have ever used the macron. I really doubt anyone would ever search for his pen-name with a macron on it. I want to undo this change but I have no experience in this type of revert and, more importantly, I want to know if my interpretation of Wikipedia:NAME is the correct one in this case. Jfgslo (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to others that this is probably not an isolated case as I've noticed similar confusion in my recent experience. Twin Spica author Kō Yaginuma renders his name as "Kou Yaginuma" on Japanese covers. Last Exile director Koichi Chigira could have his name rendered as "Kōichi Chigira" or "Kouichi Chigira", but the current rendition appears to be the most common usage. Arsonal (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dngnta has been moving quite a few articles. In this case, he is most commonly referred to as Go Nagai, so that's where the article should be. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

After carefully reading MOS:Japan, I'm now convinced that most of the editions done by Dngnta must be undone. Just for reference, for anyone with problems regarding a name transliteration of a manga author, English spelling always comes first, then any other Western spelling and only then, if none of the others exists, the macronned form. Jfgslo (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the most commonly-used one comes first. Granted, this is usually the "English" version of the name, but not always. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. And also, since this is the English Wikipedia, it's the commonly-used name in the English-speaking world, normally. Of course, there are probably some exceptions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD to Merge {{Plot}} and {{All plot}}

A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

About "list of XXX episodes"

Now that List of Spectacular Spider-Man episodes have information about the director and writer of each episode, we'd better add information about the writer, storyboard, vice director and animation director of each episode to lists of XXX episode (XXX means animes) to make the lists more useful, just as Japanese Wikipedia does. Do other Wikipedians agree?--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. First, that is NOT an anime episode list nor is it a featured list, its just a start list. It follows the television episode guidelines, not the anime ones because, again, it is NOT an anime episode list. Having that information is fine and appropriate for an American series WHERE they generally do have different directors and writers. Adding it to an anime episode list is pointless and silly for 99% of anime series which have the same director/writer for every episode. The idea of trying to add in information about the storyboard, vice director, etc is an even sillier. It does not make the lists more useful, just bloated. And just because "someone" shoved it into that low quality list, is not any kind of a justification for saying "we'd better" do anything. Further, it does not reflect the Japanese Wikipedia which generally has no episode lists at all, and when it does, it is often just a list of titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, where there is a good reason to note it (and a source or two to back it up), this information could be noted in the lead of episode lists. There is also at least one example of an anime episode list that does note this information because it does change for many episodes. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found that, while the series director is usually the same throughout a series, individual episodes are very, very often directed by multiple people who are not the series director. If this were added, I'd be in favor of episode director and animation director columns as those often change every episode. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd not be in favor of this. The episode directors and writers are generally not so important to the series, anime or not. Exceptions are made, such as some of the later seasons of X-Files, but there are always specific reasons for noting them.陣内_Jinnai 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jinnai. We shouldn't prominently note second row positions in the table, just because those change (close to) every episode and we just so happen to have space in the table. That would be placing undue weight. Goodraise 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Having them in a table doesn't give them undue weight. The episode directors and key animators are the only ones who would likely be notable enough to listed in this way as they are the ones that will be most likely to be more well known. These two positions often lead to people becoming quite well known (Narumi Kakinouchi is an example of such a person). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by what I said above. Having space to spare in the table and an often changing position on the staff is not by itself enough reason to add such a column. That doesn't mean that I'm categorically opposed to listing them, ever. If the majority of the people occupying that position for a particular series actually is notable, then that would be reason enough for me to list them. Goodraise 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are enough exceptions that we could allow it as an option...on the condition that the article actually has a referenced production section that establishes that the episode directors or key animators contributions were notable. Doceirias (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the screenwriter, storyboard, vice director and animation director of a particular anime episode are famous, so that we should include relevant info on the list. By the way, different screenwriters, storyboards, vice directors, animation directors have different animation styles, and have key influences on individual anime episodes, just less important than series composers and series directors, so that's why I assert that we mimic the way Japanese Wikipedia handles episode lists: include the screenwriters, storyboards, vice directors and animation directors of individual episodes and not animators of those. This can make list of XXX episodes more interesting to true anime fans.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an episode list on the Japanese Wikipedia that actually does that? Goodraise 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not for "true anime fans". It is not an fan site, it is an encyclopedia. None of those roles are notable for the vast majority of series, and certainly not worth noting on episode lists. Further, I challenge you to produce a dozen QUALITY episode lists on the Japanese Wikipedia that have those details actually included in the list. Meanwhile, go look at our multi-dozen FL lists that do not have them anymore than any other episode list would for other animated series. If there are "famous" people involved in a series, then there should be reliably sourcable information about their involvement that would then be in the production section of the main series article, and noted in the lead of the episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that the episode director(s) and writer(s) should be listed as they are the most influential individuals on that particular episode. It's also fairly common for different episodes to have different writers and directors. The infomercial can be easily incorporated into most tables with minimum impact on the overall layout. Anything more than that, however, will be overloading the tables and starts interfering with the lists' layout. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How does that help in understanding the work, unless the person was already notable or became notable partly because of that?陣内_Jinnai 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One can ask the same question about the airdates, episode numbers, DVD releases, season divisions. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbers put episodes in temporal context with one another, airdates puts them in real world context for when they aired (same as publication date). Season divisions are a grouping. Episode director and writers are generally meaningless for anime since most have the same director for the series throughout (never seen one yet with constantly changing episode directors), and the same for the writer. If a series does have different ones per episode, including in the table is fine to me with something in the lead to indicate that they changed, but if they are all the same, its too redundant and cluttering. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, airdates if they are weekly and you already documented the first/last probably is arguably the least relevant info on the table currently.
There's always going to be exceptions they may be relevant to note (FE: I think the Mushishi episode list should note major guest characters as the anime revolves around only 1 reoccuring character.陣内_Jinnai 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anime with different episode directors are actually the norm, so you haven't been paying very close attention, Collectonian. Almost every series I've seen (especially longer series) have varying episode directors and animation directors. Yes, there is usually one or more series director and/or animation director, but it is extremely common for individual episodes to be directed by varying people (just as many live action TV series episodes are directed by a variety of people). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedians rarely create independent episode lists; they usually embed them to respective television program/television anime/television drama articles instead. By the way, I, a mild inclusionist, think that Wikipedia is for "true anime fans" as well, since many anime and manga fans utilise Wikipedia, therefore individual screenwriters, storyboards, vice directors, animation directors should be mentioned in lists of anime episodes. However, Wikipedia should not include all verifiable information; for instance, Wikipedia should not include individual animators on lists of anime episode, even though they can be verified by watching individual anime episodes. This is the way official anime websites do. If we're going to concisely narrate the plot of a particular episode (Japanese Wikipedia does not mention the plot of the episode on relevant lists), then we must include the screenwriter, story board, vice director and animation director of the episode to improve an article's usefulness.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of crew members should be done through a priority (i.e. which crew member(s) is/are considered the most important in a production). Nihonjoe is correct in that many anime actually have a series director and also individual directors for the episodes. The individual directors would be listed as "Director" (演出, Enshutsu) in an episode summary. Examples: (Digimon Adventure) (Toradora!) (Eden of the East) Note that sometimes this information may not be listed in the website but can be referenced to the episode credits. Arsonal (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Using just the term "Director" would be misleading at best and possible to get slapped as a NPOV violation at worst, because it implies they are the main director, if it is commonplace. Eipsode Director would be needed to distinquish them. Even so, we don't list an editor on a manga in chapter lists, even if, such as in School Rumble the editor is cited as being just as much a part of the editing process.陣内_Jinnai 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the series director listed as "Series Director", "Supervising Director", and similar, with individual episodes listed as having simply a "Director". It does not imply they are the main director to list them as "Director" when the other information (about the series director) is included in the article as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree again. The proper way to denote the overall director in prose is "The series was directed by…", not "The episodes were directed by…" unless the latter is also true. Arsonal (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)