Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 44

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Bread Ninja in topic Alice in the Country of Hearts
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Question

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm planning on splitting the "Specials" from the article List of Case Closed episodes. Is there any problems with this? I plan on working on it once I receive an answer. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the rationale for splitting it? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to decrease the size to the episode list. More episodes are expected from the specials section per year though. 1 for the Shonen Jump specials, and 1 for the Magic Files section. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. It will help keep the format of lists in the main episode list consistent. I believe we also have an unwritten guideline that about 13 episodes (equivalent to a season's worth) is enough material for a separate list, provided that there is enough information for a sizeable lead. Arsonal (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Anime and manga related redirects

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Category:Anime and manga related redirects is populated by the newly created Template:Anime r and I'm wondering if this is a good idea. Normally redirects are tracked via the project banner on the talk page. Doing it this way seems to mess up Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anime r. Has this template and category been discussed anywhere? Are they a good idea? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall any discussion on this... Personally, I feel that this is redundant to the talk page |class=redirect parameter and the usual {{R from other capitalisation}}/{{r to section}}/{{CharR to list entry}} (etc.) templates. But that is just me.^_^ G.A.Stalk 12:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with G.A.S. Such a template was not discussed and it is redundant to the existing templates and the project box param. Sending to TfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there a recent CfD that's related to this? *rummages through junk drawer* Ah, here we go: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 19#Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of hoaxes into related articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

An anonymous editor, using a series of IP addresses (76.118.115.224, 75.144.160.241, 75.147.11.106), all of which seems to originate from the same area or school, has continued to plant hoaxes into articles related to the O-Parts Hunter series for over a month now, in spite of repeated warnings not to do so. It's not your everyday vandalism either, as one not familiar with either the series or studio could be mistaken into believing these are genuine edits. Perhaps semi-protection of these pages, or something similar, is in order? ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's still consistently planting these hoaxes into these articles without abating, even after receiving numerous final warnings. Can someone please protect these pages and block the IPs involved? ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Reporting to WP:AIV and file a request for protection would be faster than asking here, as we only have a few admins who are part of the project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP, who posted a message admitting to the hoax, was banned for 31 hours and the page semi-protected for a week, after I reported the issue on WP:AIV. Hopefully this should do the trick. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Super Dimension series moved

Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

I've moved all the "Super Dimension" series per the discussion here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Google indicates there are 392,000 results for "The Super Dimension Fortress Macross" versus 101,000 results for "Super Dimension Fortress Macross." It is streaming from Hulu as "The Super Dimension Fortress Macross." It is listed in AnimEigo's website as "The Super Dimension Fortress Macross." 1-54-24 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Google hits are not a reliable source for anything, and do not represent any official usage of the title. Hulu's top graphic may use "the" but the page name does not. The page itself says 'Title Super Dimension Fortress Macross'. Animeigo released the series as 'Macross Tv' the name they also give that page and url on their site, their liner notes are secondary to what they actually released the product as. ADV also dropped 'The' when releasing their version of the tv series, and 'The' was dropped on Macross II as well.Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS-AM recognizes the "most commonly known English title" that is "best known," and Google results are a valid measure of that. AnimEigo and Hulu's releases demonstrates, contrary to the archived discussion, that English releases use both wordings with "The" and without it. In fact, there was never a release called "Super Dimension Fortress Macross II," just "The Super Dimension Fortress Macross II: Lovers, Again" or "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross II." Similarly, there was never a release called "Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love?," just "The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love?" "Macross: Do You Remember Love?" or "Super Spacefortress Macross." As it stands, these articles are listed under titles that are neither the most commonly known title nor any released title. 1-54-24 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
User:1-54-24 is correct that Google hits are a valid way of determining which name is the most commonly used, per WP:UCN and WP:SET. I also agree that all of the titles should be at a name that was actually used, even if that would make the names inconsistent with each other. If they have been released under inconsistent names, then we should mirror that rather than trying to make them consistent ourselves. Calathan (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily true. We do go by common usage, but that is further qualified by common usage in reliable sources. Search engine hits cannot immediately distinguish reliable sources from not. Arsonal (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In this case, we're talking about one of two titles in reliable sources, as well as titles that are in the original sources versus titles that are not used in the sources at all. 1-54-24 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Arsonal, I think what you are saying is missing the point of a search engine test. Though we should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, a search engine test is an accepted way to assess which is the most common when it otherwise isn't clear which is most common. My understanding of WP:UCN is that if the most commonly used name is clear from reading the reliable sources then that name should be used, but when it isn't clear, using the number of Google hits is a way to choose a name to use. I think the number of Google hits (including both reliable and unreliable sources) is intended as a way to approximate the usage in reliable sources. However, I'm not saying that we necessarily should use search engine tests in this case, only that I think it is an accepted way to pick a name to use if it seems there are multiple titles in use in reliable sources and it isn't clear otherwise which is the most commonly used. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please be sure to read the discussion I linked to as it explains why the renaming is correct. To reiterate, all of the English-language releases I've seen (and I own all of them, too) omit the "The". All of them. On the covers, inserts, printing on the disc, in the subtitles and other titling, etc. All of them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not correct, as explained above. AnimEigo's liner notes do not omit "The." AnimEigo's website does not omit "The." Hulu has "The." As it stands, several of the articles use titles that are not actually used in any release. 1-54-24 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Will you stop insisting that Hulu call the series "The". The URL, title of the page and actual text on that page do NOT say "the" only a graphic does. Hulu are not calling the series "the". Click on an episode, and the series title that is displayed is not "The".Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of what the liner notes say or don't say (the printed ones are different than those online, for example) the covers of all of them omit "The". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I did read the previous discussion. I don't think the main issue is whether the titles omit "The". While I think you can make a good case for the original series being at Super Dimension Fortress Macross, I think the most commonly used name for Macross II is just "Macross II", without "Super Dimension Fortress" or "Lovers, Again". None of the English language packaging I've seen has "Lovers, Again" on it. You could make a case for "Super Dimensional Fortress" with "Dimensional" not "Dimension", as that is written on the packaging I've seen. However, from what I've seen just "Macross II" is most commonly used when talking about it, and the words "Super Dimensional Fortress" only appears on the box art but is rarely used otherwise. For example, the version RightStuf is selling is listed as "Macross II Movie", and the version Netflix is streaming is listed as "Macross 2: The Movie". WP:UCN calls for the most commonly used name among reliable sources to be used, even if it is not the official name, and in my opinion "Macross II" is the most commonly used name. I know that WP:MOS-AM says that the most commonly used name is most often the official title, but it doesn't say it has to be, and I think the instructions at WP:UCN take precedence over WP:MOS-AM anyway. Similarly, I think Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love? is not an official name or a commonly used name. I would say that "Macross: Do You Remember Love?" is the most commonly used name in English. In this case, I think none of the official English titles are commonly used at all. From what I've seen, most reliable sources use "Macross: Do You Remember Love?" (e.g. [1]). To summarize, what I'm suggesting is:
For the others, I don't know what is commonly used off the top of my head and haven't looked into them. Calathan (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with those moves. I only made these because of the previous discussion, where these alternate titles were not even mentioned. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Macross II has had at least two releases using "Super Dimensional Fortress in the US - one of which is the Manga Ent version sold on Right Stuff the title they've attached to it is not the title it was released with[2]. Plus at least 2 in the UK (there doesn't seem to have been a newer release since 2001). I didn't noticed the dimension/dimensional before. So thats at least 4 uses. I would however agree with DYRL. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As I noted above, "Super Dimensional Fortress" is used on the packaging and is part of the official English title, but I don't think it is widely used outside the packaging. WP:UCN says to use the most common name in reliable sources, even if it isn't the offical title, and in this case I think "Macross II" is the most common name despite not being the official title. Calathan (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Along the same lines of thinking, we have two official titles for the first Macross series, but one happens to be the most commonly used and "best known." 1-54-24 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And, by virtue of being on all the covers and printed on all the discs, the most common one is the one which omits "The". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, all the AnimEigo's discs only have "Macross" printed on them. Please don't state "all" again without verifying. Again, we have to go with the "most commonly known" and "best known." 1-54-24 (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
They actually have the Japanese title with "Macross" directly below it. However, all of the covers (as well as the bonus picture insert) have "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" printed on them. Additionally, the liner notes begin with "The Liner Notes are based solely on the opinions of, and research conducted by, Egan Loo", so anything in them should not be considered official in any way. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The legalese doesn't say that the "The" title is unofficial, especially since the title is on other material without that legalese.
  • All of this backpedaling of what is printed or not printed is obscuring the main criteria: as Calathan noted, which is the "most commonly known" and "best known" title. 1-54-24 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm moving the pages per the criteria discussed above. 1-54-24 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no. It should be without "The". My fingers apparently didn't type what I was thinking, and my brain didn't see that until now. Please move them back. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We've already demonstrated earlier in this discussion which title is the most commonly known. As Calathan noted, the most commonly known title of an anime is not necessarily the common one on the packaging or even one that appears on the packaging at all (although in this case, the title is also in some of them.) I don't think reiterating these points is needed, since everyone else acknowledges this. 1-54-24 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. As far as the search engine test previously mentioned goes, its not the valid "check" that it's made out to be. For starters I'm betting most of the sites that will come back from that google search won't be reliable sources, which defeats the point of making the check - especially as the policy says Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.. Has you checked reliable sources for the most common name while making your case? Secondly given that SET is neither policy or guideline, and spends much of its content giving disclaimers about how the information is likely to be filled with issues, we should be wary of putting too much faith in it's results. The points will be reiterated until they are resolved to our satisfaction. They aren't at this time. Calathan has noted reliable sources, how about offering some to back up your case before telling us the issue is settled when it's not? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What a bloody shambles this turned out to be. By this reasoning many of our articles are in the wrong place because they use official titles. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

While I think WP:MOS-AM isn't quite in line with WP:UCN, in that the former strongly encourages using offical names while the latter says the official name isn't necessarily the name that should be used, in practice I think the most common name from reliable sources will be the official name. Usually most of the reviewers, merchants, etc. are going to use the official title. Calathan (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm appealing for assistance in improving this article. Tezuka is one of only two top-importance biography articles in the project (the other being Hayao Miyazaki), and there are plenty of sources to make use of. I've started adding sources as well as removing/replacing questionable ones, and I've reduced the "selected works" section to something more manageable and relevant to his most well known works, as opposed to listing a couple dozen titles. I'm looking for help in expanding the article in relevant areas, further sourcing (not just dumping random links to the page for others to do the work please!) and general cleanup. Any helpful assistance welcome.Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't offer much in the way of assistance, since I'm woefully undereducated here, but I applaud your taking this on, as it's very much needed. Thank you! —Quasirandom (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm making no promises, but i'll see what I can do. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This would be a good opportunity, I think, to ask about the project's stance on bibliography lists (e.g. Bibliography of Go Nagai). Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
For the likes of Go Nagai and Tezuka, their volume of work would pretty much require it in some form as it's simply not possible to summarise it properly in a biography.Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dengeki Novel Prize

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Point of clarification: is the Dengeki Novel Prize (Official Website considered good evidence for notability. It is held annually by the publisher ASCII Media Works. Who judges it seems to vary year by year. Can the comments provided by the judges used as reception? (example comments on Baccano!, Our Home's Fox Deity and Spice and Wolf) I'm more concerned with being able to use the comments as reception. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes because awarding a prize is already a form of opinion toward the work receiving the prize so the rationals going along the prize are OK.
Note that Japan Media Arts Festival has also jury commenting their choice like here. --KrebMarkt 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been running quite some time, and I don't see any reason why comments from judges can't be used as reception. I'd probably want some other evidence of notability in an AfD, but it would certainly help. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments from judges are definitely a good source for reception. But the prize itself isn't good evidence for notability. It's awarded to promising new works, and a healthy percentage of them never amount to anything; you'll see honorable mentions become huge hits, and gold prize winners vanish completely after failing to make any kind of impact. Doceirias (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be popular or successful to be notable though. Often the two go hand in hand, but you can have notable failures.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we're talking instantly forgotten crap, here, really. Doceirias (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
True. Just wondering for the few (read: four) notable series that won something and have comments. I really agree with Dandy Sephy that it shouldn't be the only thing saving an article in an AfD. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 02:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
My point was basically that the prize conferring notability and the prize comments being an RS for the reception section are two seperate issues. Just as any good article would mention the prize in the lead, any good reception section would quote the judge's comments, if available. It's a key element in the IP's developement, and one of the few we're likely to find data on. Doceirias (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chapters title

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

When it comes to chapter listing, such as it has a name such as Stages, Retrace, Nights, Chapters,Prayer etc.. Do we include them or remove them and just keep it as a number? Reason why i Ask is because, on Maria Holic a member keeps reverting my edits whenever i add "Prayer ##" onto the chapter listing. and if they aren't suppose to be there, should we remove all the other Chapter listings?? and if we keep them, do we add them onto the Chapter listings that originally had them in there??

EDIT:I personally think we should keep them, because they are the title and the rest are subtitlesBread Ninja (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am said editor who removed the "Prayer" prefix to each of the chapter numbers, as they are not apart of the titles and add little to no encyclopedic content to the entry. Do we really have to know what the author chose to classify the chapters as? Do we really need such in-universe content as "Prayer xx", "Stage xx", etc?--十八 04:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
A title is a title, if a title is called "Chapter 1" and has a subtitle, do we include just the subtitle?. I already knew your opinion on the matter though.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
And I am saying that it's not apart of the title; it's simply another way of saying "chapter", and adding it in is little more than fancruft.--十八 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Most other lists use the chapter names used in the work, including chapter, stage, prayer, etc, including some of our featured lists. I don't think its an "in-universe" issue as it isn't a plot point. The author gave the chapters their names. Who who are we to decide they should be called something else? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
With that kind of argument, who are we to decide to change the typeface of NARUTO into Naruto? The point is that it's unencyclopedic, and adds nothing to the lists beyond telling readers the author's original preference. And seriously, we don't usually add "Chapter xx", we just have the number as in List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters, so then why should we give these manga that have non-standard classifications special treatment?--十八 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's only a typeface issue, not a title issue. I do agree, though, that there's no need to include "Chapter x", "Prayer x", etc., as there's no reason to do so. Perhaps include a brief note at the top of the list if it's something unusual (something other than "chapter")? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the 'prayer' or 'stage' or 'rule' is an intrinsic part of the title of the chapter. As another example, for Tramps Like Us, the chapters are "Rules", where the form goes "Rule #1: On raising a beautiful boy", but the final chapter departs from this form and is simply "Last Rule: Our future." It's simpler to have the whole chapter title (including 'prayer' or whatever) in case of these changes. --Malkinann (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that when an author replaces the usual chapter counter with "stage" or "navigation," it's significant and ought to be mentioned, but I've come to believe that nothing need be made of it than a mention in the intro to the list of chapters -- unless it's called out in RS as significant. When the number is replaced by Last for the conclusion, we can also do the same without having to include the counter. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is we don't know if it's just a replacement of chapter or it's indeed part of the title. but it appears to be a title. Though really, it seems to be a tie with whether we should keep/add them or remove themBread Ninja (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

oh nevermind, i miscounted, it seems using the chapters appears to be majority by one. hmmm.....I still think they should be kept, it's much safer to keep them then to remove them.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I only note such chapter titles/labels in the lead of chapter lists (if at all), and I view noting them with every chapter title as somewhat redundant, but I'm really not terribly opinionated on the issue. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, that does sound too redundant.....hmm....if it's a label, then it's fine to be removed. but if it's an actual title of a chapter with a subtitle, i'm not so sure....again, i say it's much safer to add them in , then to remove them. anyone else have an opinion?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting linking to websites with official episodes/manga scans online

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Since this is becoming increasingly more common for every licensed media franchise and there are legitimate reasons for linking per WP:ELYES (the manga/episodes are part of parts of the work being distributed for free legally and at least linking to a general site, like the listing of Hayate the Combat Butler episodes is unlikely to be broken, even if specific episodes are deleted.陣内Jinnai 20:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why a second link is needed, unless its being used as a reference as we're doing at List of InuYasha: The Final Act episodes. Most official sites will have the links to legally distributed works anyway, making them redundant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Because in the past we actually were leaning against this practice because we didn't know if they'd be taken down, ie they would be unstable links.陣内Jinnai 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think it all depends on the website, some websites might have gotton permission to use the images/episodes from the sources or they could be sources themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. If its a website owned by the licensee then we should be able to link them. They don't need to give themselves permission to freely distribute their stuff.陣内Jinnai 03:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nononono (manga)

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Is this manga notable in any way? I placed a construction tag on the article as the article appears new but right now to avoid an AfD it needs quite a bit of work. (P.S, this is knowledgekid87, I am just on a public computer right now hence the non login) - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed a prod without really being sure. Author is notable, and the series has lasted nine volumes, which is pretty long for that magazine and usually indicates a hit. Page was created by an inexperienced editor, and was a real mess at the time of nomination. Doceirias (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
7 days is the period construction usually should last, if no progress has been made I will endorse the AfD. I think I have actully seen this manga article in the past and do think I remember it being deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If it was deleted before, it was under a different name; the page logs shows no previous deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Nononono+%28manga%29 --Gwern (contribs) 00:22 26 February 2010 (GMT)
Shouldn't the title be Nono no No? Meaning, "Nono's 'No'". Agreed that lasting this long in a weekly magazine indicates likely notability, but I'm not immediately seeing anything that explicitly supports it (under either title). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be deleted, the author who created the article is most likely not going to continue with it so it won't have the renovations needed to keep the article alive. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Im for a delete actully, I just placed a tag on the article to avoid a speedy AfD in case the manga was notable. I like to give new articles a fighting chance before AfD unless the cause is totally hopeless, but it looks like this is in fact non notable and not likely to be finnished. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think an AfD would be largely a waste of time, unless someone has a bunch of swell print sources - as I pointed out with my PROD endorsement, there's nothing in the English web on it as far as my CSE could tell. --Gwern (contribs) 01:26 26 February 2010 (GMT)
"Not likely to be finished" and "no English sources" are both completely invalid reasons to delete an article. You people are as bad as Dream Focus. Not that I plan to lift a finger to improve the article. But there's enough reasons to suspect possible notability that I figured it was best to avoid a hasty prod, and see if anyone felt the need to dig deeper and maybe find something on it. Doceirias (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If there aren't any English sources, than a fortiori, there aren't any sources for notability. I'm an eventuo-inclusionist, but even I have standards.
If you have Japanese RS websites, then I would gladly add them into my CSE. But until then, don't blame people for looking where the light is. --Gwern (contribs) 04:28 26 February 2010 (GMT)
Insisting on the qualifier "English" is insisting on systematic bias. Say there are no sources, and fair enough. Say there are no English sources and you're not able to look for them in other languages -- which might be what you meant, come to think of it -- and you also have an argument. But an article does not need English language sources to establish notability, and I was annoyed to an established editor making that claim. (Also, I'm not even sure there are any Japanese RS websites. They really need to go make some. Would make things a lot easier.) Doceirias (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone going to put it up for deletion? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No reliable hits on Google News. Arsonal (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy on my userspace if necessary. --KrebMarkt 06:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it has almost been 7 days and nobody has put any real work into the article, I feel an AfD is in order unless Kreb wants it userfied to his page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Placed it up for deletion here. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yandere

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm very tempted to renominate Yandere for a third time. After two AfDs, the article still nothing more than a bunch of original research, almost entirely unverifiable and minimally source (only one source which doesn't even backup anything in the article). —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can source the term and some examples from the Otaku encyclopedia and clean the remainder of the article up. But anymore then that may prove difficult, it doesn't have that "mainstream" useage that Tsundere or Moe have. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to move it to Wiktionary? If it's not going to be much more than a dictionary definition, that's the best place for it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The first thing to do would be to cut the entire article down to content that can be sourced. I'm not sure if we will have to go through AfD to get the article transwikied to Wiktionary. The last AfD closed as keep simply because no one else gave a supporting argument for deletion, even though the keep argument were extremely week. —Farix (t | c) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I can do this after work. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. I have taken extreme steps and reduced the article to a single paragraph, all attributed to The Otaku Encyclopedia. I did a quick search of the term when Farix originally started the topic yesterday and found no immediate sources of use online. The previous removal of the examples was reverted earlier for no stated reason, I suggest keeping a close eye on the article (I've added it to my watchlist) to make sure people don't reinsert OR. For example it's clear from the previous versions that School Days contains a frankly disturbing portrayal of the character type, but I've seen nothing that actually specifies which character it is (If anyone finds a reliable source discussing the "Nice Boat" controversy/meme, that might have some leads. Given that the term apparently began being used 10 years ago and in School Days around 5 years ago, theres very little usage of it within reliable western sources.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Copy to Wiktionary}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think transwiking this accomplishes what we want. There is already an article at Wiktionary on Yandere. My understanding is that transwiking this won't remove it from Wikipedia, just put a copy of it on Wikitionary and allow editors there to decide whether to merge content from the Wikipedia version or not. While this might be a way to show them that we've found a better source for the term, it does nothing to address whether an article on Yandere should exit on Wikipedia (personally, I just think this will make unnecessary work for Wiktionary editors). I think a new AfD is necessary if we think the content should be removed from Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag. Calathan (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started another AfD, noting that it's pretty much a dicdef. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cover

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Hi. A while ago, I uploaded a new cover for Fairy Cube (File:Fairy Cube.jpg). However, the article is still showing the old picture (although it's been replaced). Help? Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It has something to do with the image size because when the size is anything other than 200 pixels the new picture shows up. I have had the same thing happen to me many times. --Mika1h (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the size. The server cache has not updated, so just wait a day or two until it does, and the new image should show up. This happens sometimes when you upload new versions of an image. Arsonal (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Even though I uploaded the new picture over a month ago? Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Try reverting and reuploading. Also, the image should not be larger than necessary. The full width of the infobox is 230px. Arsonal (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
And thank you very much. It worked. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
One question, why did you replace the original Japanese cover with an English cover? This shouldn't be done as there has never been a consensus to replace Japanese covers with English or vice versa. Instead, it is whichever cover that is added first. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Volume 1 cover rule :p
Note that the Japanese Cover was not the first volume one so it had to be replaced by either Japanese or English volume 1 --KrebMarkt 19:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no "Volume 1 cover rule". While the first volume is preferred, any volume will do so long at it antiquity illustrates the article. Even so, I think that if the first cover to illustrated an article is a Japanese cover, then any updated image should remain as the same. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the cover with the first one of the North American release since that one was commented on by reviewers: Mania thought it (and the title) were deceptively pretty since the subject is really quite gruesome and ANN called it "hands down the most beautiful of any yet to be published under Viz Media's Shojo Beat imprint." And well, in my opinion, it makes more sense to have a picture of the first volume rather than a picture of a random volume in the infobox. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The English cover has received RS attention, so in this case the switch is fine. Did anyone add these remarks to the reception section on Fairy Cube, or are they already there? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Only the ANN remark is in the reception section. I'm planning on rewriting the section since more reviews have been found and I'm unhappy with the quality of the writing in that section. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I Also would prefer the Japanese one over the English one. though ANN was leaning toward art than title font. still, it's RS, so i guess the english one can be kept.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I'm planning on cleaning Category:Lists of anime episodes by adding more subcategories by giving the episode lists the same kind of categories as Category:Case Closed episode lists but I decided to get this checked first in case my actions spark a mass revert to my edits. Any problems? One change I'll do is remove the categories "Lists of anime episodes" from articles such as List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes since they have their own subcategory episode list already. I also plan on creating a category called "--Anime name-- Anime DVD covers" such as I did for Category:Case Closed Anime DVD covers. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the image category, be sure to use the NOGALLERY tag (as you did for the Case Close cover category). Other than that, this sounds like a good case for organization. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That cat needs moving to Category:Case Closed anime DVD covers.--十八 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave that for someone else since I don't know how to move it. If it involves deleting that category and re-categorizing all those images again, maybe some other time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a case for a speedy rename, as it is to fix a capitalization error in the category's name. —Farix (t | c) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I just went ahead and did this one as there's no reason to wait 48 hours over a case change. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The new category is empty though, has it been moved correctly? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Drama CDs listed at CFD for renaming or deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your input is welcome here. postdlf (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

More opinions

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A few weeks ago, there was a requested assessment of Mr. Mime. As a Pokemon article, it had already been assessed as B-Class by WP Video Games and WP Pokemon. However, upon review G.A.S. and I thought that this article was still C-Class. My reasoning was that the sourcing was heavily based on game guides which didn't appear to be reliable; while at the same time weak on more direct coverage of the subject by reliable sources.

All that to say, an editor has been trying to persuade me that these guides are reliable, and specifically these IGN game guides that are supposedly written my staff members. I can't confirm that these are staff, and even if they are. I'm not sure that the IGN stamp on it assures us that these walkthroughs have a solid editorial practice behind them. Anyway, I'd like some other opinions at Talk:Mr. Mime if possible, on the sources and on my assessment. Sorry for the long-winded and possibly biased explanation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If the game guides are official they are reliable. If they are published by major 3rd-party publishers they are reliable, unless shown not to be (there are a few examples of items I remember being found unrelaible). The manual trumps them and the game trumps the manual. Now depending on how he was using the game guide, it may not have been appropriate.
For IGN, if they are published by IGN as an "official IGN guide", we give them the same level of creditably that we give other aspects as IGN. If it's IGN just publishing whatever game guides they get, we find out who published them and treat them as self-published sources-if a known expert in the field publishes it, it is reliable otherwise its not. Again though, the manual and game still trump it.陣内Jinnai 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears like it might be published by someone working for IGN; still working to nail that down. Is it appropriate to use a game guide for a reception section? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Offhand, I'd have to say only if they have some non-trivial critical analysis on whatever they are doing. In general, they're used mostly for gameplay and plot.陣内Jinnai 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seiyu awards

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

4th Annual Seiyu awards have been announced. I'm not sure if these would automatically make someone notable, but it can't hurt (heck,two of the winners have been notable for at least a decade). [3] Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do with this article

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Lupin III vs Detective Conan. Does it have enough notability to stand? If it does, do I include it in both the Case Closed and Lupin template? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think notability is a concern. I can spend some time bulking the article up at the weekend if I get chance. It should be in both templates really as it's a crossover. If notability is questionable, I'll userfy it to my userspace until it's resolved, but I doubt it will be a problem.Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm -- is it any more notable than the rest of the Lupin III tv specials? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats what I hope to establish, but being a crossover only helps it's case. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First English airing

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Kagome1977, while as an IP, added "subtitled" to the English airdate header of the List of InuYasha: The Final Act episodes. I reverted it as being unnecessary and cluttery. She logged in, tried again, I reverted again, and discussion began. As part of this discussion, she is claiming that the English airdates, which are the date the episodes "aired" subtitled on Hulu as officially released by Viz are not the first English airdates and that we either must keep her added wording or remove the column until the series airs on TV. As part of our back and forth, she also claimed Naruto's list is wrong because it aired dubbed on other stations first, if my assertion is correct that the first English airing is irregardless of it being subbed/dubbed and where it aired, so long as it was legal. So additional views could be used at Talk:List of InuYasha episodes#English airdate for the second series regarding that issue, and at Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes#English Airdates where the same user has also posed the question of whether the Animax airings are the valid first English airings and the table should thus be updated, after incorrectly summarizing my remarks from the InuYasha discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Anime

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After watching The roots of Japanese Anime (A dvd that shows early anime from 1930 - 1942) I feel a piece of anime history is left out with the early paper animation (Chiyogami Paper Craft) such as ( In English titles): The Village Festival (1930), Song of Spring, (1931), Chinkoroheibei and the Treasure Box (1936) (Looks alot like an early Disney Cartoon). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article series in most need of trim

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

So which article series is in most need of being trimmed or cleaned up? In the past, Gundam would have been the hands down winner. But over time, that has been steadily improving while other series have steadily grown worse.

After that point, I got tired at looking through Category:Anime and manga series categories. —Farix (t | c) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
  • Saint Seiya's primary issue is the excessive character pages(one of the biggest items listed on the cleanup page).
  • Yu-gi-oh is mostly character and game merges.
  • Reborn isn't too bad. A few character merges, but everything else seems in order at a glance.
  • Many of the Robotech pages should be merged to the main article while trimmed of excessive details (especially the many unverified claims).
  • Beyblade is another character merge candidate.
  • Code Geass is a surprise entry compared to some of the other franchises. It's a small category, but I guess that also means it's a "quick fix".
  • Death Note,mostly characters again
So in summary, most of these being character merges is no surprise to anyone with a minor interest in the cleanup page. Unfortunately we need people familiar with the series (preferably) to go through and start merging or merge proposals. The problem is finding someone who can address the merging and also decide what is relevant and what is not. It's difficult to do that with franchises you don't know. Unless we can recruit experts on the individual subjects who know what they are doing, it may be best for a group of us to tackle the areas in order of most pages needing attention, something I alluded to previously. The cleanup page has remained fairly constant for some time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying that I see GAS has been busy and merged a lot of articles from the cleanup page already. I only found out as the quality bot just updated, the cleanup page hasn't been updated. Same goes for the Nadesico merges you finished up.Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually scrap that, looking at the diffs the cleanup page may be filled with redundant entriess. GAS has been adding the proper redirect tags (which I often forget...) to already merged pages. The cleanup listing was never updated during the previous merges. I've removed 6 redundant entries and reduced the Saint Seiya totals by 19. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I just got the random idea to scan through all WP:ANIME articles for redirects before updating the quality statistics graph yesterday^_^. CSS to colour links to redirects green is very useful for this purpose. G.A.Stalk 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I should not that discussions on talk pages pertaining to an article that was redirected should not be blanked, except to remove messages from the image copyright bots. —Farix (t | c) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I would add that for such pages, the banner should not simply be removed, but instead changed to {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Redirect}} (plus whatever flag parameters are necessary). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I am doing^_^. G.A.Stalk 09:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"Death Note,mostly characters again" I disagree here, some of the death note characters are very notable as death note is widely popular. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But are the character notable outside of Death Note's notability? Most of the articles aren't showing it. —Farix (t | c) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking in more detail only a couple of characters fail to show notability, so it should be a even quicker clean up. I removed one article from the cat, which was one of the actresses in one of the versions, and a very small stub at that. 2-3 potential merges in that cat, the rest seem fine. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
for Code geass,

the main article for Code geass franchise seems pretty simple. I believe only the setting section and Geass section can be trimmed.

Code Geass: Nightmare of Nunnally, Nunnally Lamperouge, Jeremiah Gottwald, Rolo Lamperouge holds no notability, so that can be AFD.

It's really just plot relevance that needs to be trimmed.

for Battle Angle Alita

the OVA needs trimming or move the information to somewhere else. like character differences can be explained in there own character sections. and plot difference, I'm not so sure if it should be removed completely or be trimmed and put it in prose style. never seen this series before, but if it were up to me, i would suggest removing it completely considering OVAs usually have some plot differences.

the character articles need a lot of trimming, possibly even AFD if no third-party or second-party sources are found. Alita's article is mainly written in an in-universe style. again never seen this series so I'm not so sure what should be AFD and what should be trimmed. who ever seen this series, should remove some characters in the list article.

Concepts is what i really worry about. i think it should be trimmed then be moved to another article and possible even deleting them completely.

In an attempt to clear the merge backlog I have started to merge individual character articles into List of Battle Angel Alita characters. Help would be appreciated! G.A.Stalk 06:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Death Note

this one is fairly easy. it's the character articles that need work. Near's article, i suggest trim the character section and removing Interest and possibly Personality if no citation is found. Mello's article is a bit in-universe and maybe needs a bit of expansion. the shinigami article needs a lot of trimming in the overview section. some sections could be merged like concept of ryuk and ryuk in the pilot chapter.

i'll continue this in a bit.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For beyblade, the main article has a bit of explanation on the seasons and all the episodes are in one article. I suggest making them separate. as for the characters, they have made it really elaborate. more elaborate than battle star alita. still i suggest the same, trimming plot relevance to the basic and there seems to be trivia in some of these articles. so that should be removed.

As for Yu-Gi-OH! those articles have always needed trimming. the spin offs and various other articles always have large amount of info. I'll look into that some other time.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that some research efforts will be made prior to merging. For example, while KrebMarkt was looking for some other stuff for me, he came across a fairly in-depth discussion of Andromeda Shun's depiction in yaoi doujins, which was too in-depth for the yaoi article, so I added it to the reception section for Andromeda Shun. --Malkinann (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat-related tangent, could someone please delineate for me exactly what the difference between singles, soundtracks, albums, etc. are in regards to the lists? I understand that they are different, and have a vague notion of how, but I really don't understand the details too well. (for anyone curious, this is spurred by the fact that the cleanup page currently lists 28 articles needing to be merged into the nonexistent List of Dragon Ball albums, and 73 articles needing to be merged into List of Dragon Ball soundtracks.) Also, is the difference great enough to justify splitting Category:Anime soundtracks (and are soundtracks for manga series without anime adaptations really so unheard of as to justify the omission of "and manga" from the category's name)? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Battle Angel Alita characters

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of Battle Angel Alita characters on whether the following individual character articles should be merged into the character list: Alita, Daisuke Ido, Hunter-warrior (Battle Angel Alita), Vector (Battle Angel Alita), Koyomi K., Barjack, Figure Four (Battle Angel Alita). Input would be appreciated. G.A.Stalk 04:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Japanese review site for list of RS

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Comic Master, from my view, seems to be a good possibility for inclusion as a good source of manga reviews. They have an impressive list of reviews, too. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a few questions. How do they stack up to the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:SPS (assuming it is a self-published source. Do they have any backing from an established publisher or have been extensively quoted by other reliable sources? Does the site have any editorial oversight, such as the reviews must be approved by an editor before being published? Do the reviewers have a reputation of being knowledgeable on the subject? Being that I don't know Japanese, it would be difficult for me to judge a sites reliability based on a link. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Same for me. I'm in the expectative as there is no evidence why they are credible and should be given weight. Then again there is the language hurdle. If inputs can come from editors skilled in Japanese that would very helpful. --KrebMarkt 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely a personal blog; one manga fan reviewing his extensive collection. It makes no claims to be anything else. Doceirias (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who missed the Nononono AfD, a reference to a NHK show reviewing manga have been brought and the list of covered manga series can be found here. --KrebMarkt 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One more RS the Asahi Shimbun's manga column --KrebMarkt 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that a book review column for a major daily newspaper is pretty much automatically considered RS, I think this one's a no-brainer. Good find. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This one is easier to judge than the previous links. Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's largest newspapers so it would definitely pass WP:RS. Good find there. —Farix (t | c) 18:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend using a site like WebCite to archive anything you find in that column so that we'll still have access to it if they remove the column for some reason. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy editor Request

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is this the right place to ask for a copy editor? If I'm wrong, my bad but a FL review told me to ask here once. Anyways, I would like to find a copy editor to copy edit List of Case Closed episodes (season 17) to make it less confusing and to push the article's grammar so it would be ready for another Featured List candidate. Some of the parts were very difficult for me to describe and I don't mind clarifying a few points in the plot. Again, if this is the wrong place for this, my bad. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

May also want to post a request at Guild of Copy Editors request board though they are running way behind. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I will see if I can take a look at it and fix things up. Remind me on my talk page if you don't see anything in the next couple days. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks. I know some parts are confusing so I could clarify some of them when needed. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on it right now. Should have it done today sometime. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Split List of .hack characters

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

since jinnai told me to bring it up here and in WT:VG, i brought up yet another .hack article proposal.

Basically what i am proposing is to split the list of .hack characters into two articles, List of Project .hack characters and .hack conglomerate characters. you can see the discussion here Talk:List of .hack characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

note: this will also be proposed in WT:VG due to it relating to video games aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Character Infobox Update

Latest comment: 14 years ago128 comments12 people in discussion

The following paramaters have (finally) been removed from the character infobox:

  • age
  • born
  • death
  • specialty
  • callsign
  • residence

Article still using the deprecated elements can be found at Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters. Anyone want to help clean up the anime/manga characters in that list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid non of the anime and manga characdter wills how up as they use a different character template. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well pooh.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You called? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there just a bot that can be used to update the templates? Going through templates every time there is an update to the template is long and hard and just adds another long project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really hard to find the userboxes that have such parameters. i'll see what i can find.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Would this be an example of one? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be trivial to remove these parameters from our character infobox, and we already have a tracking category that can be used (though truth be told, I've never been crazy about its name). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which brings up the question of do we really need a a separate character infobox? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to include the kanji/kana of the character's name (similar to how the title is in {{Infobox animanga}} and related). This would make the need for a separate one useful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

it would be "trivial" to remove them? i think some of them make the article in an in-universe style. I think stuff like creator, concept artist or such would be good for fictional character infobox.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? That stuff belongs in the production/design details. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
that doesn't stop it from not being in the infobox. if we followed your reasoning there wouldnt even be a infobox.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to shove such information in the infobox, when it will more than likely be mentioned in the lead. It doesn't need to be included in the infobox.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no need to shove kanji/kana into {{Infobox animanga character}} as it does not add anything except make the infobox longer. It may be worth reviewing the current parameters to see if they aren't too "crufty" or widely abused. However, I would oppose rolling {{Infobox animanga character}} into {{Infobox character}} as some of the commonly used parameters in the former will not go over well in the latter and the latter has parameters are are way too crufty, like |cause= and the various permutations of the relationship fields. —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything in an infobox only serves to make it longer. The whole point of the infobox, though, is to grab the important points for quick reference. It would only add one line to the infobox, so it's not like it would be adding an entire section to the infobox. As the kanji/kana are the name of the character, I don't see how it's not something which should be included. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
But that's the thing, kanji/kana isn't important information for an English reader. Its just meaningless nonsense that takes up space in the infobox. Fields in the infobox should have relevance to the work or understanding the character, and if they don't they should be left blank if not possibly removed. —Farix (t | c) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, hell, by that reasoning, we shouldn't have any Japanese at all on the English Wikipedia. Your argument is completely off-base. The Japanese for these characters is their original name from the original work, and is therefore not "meaningless nonsense". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's take the three fields that correlate with what is happening in {{Infobox character}}, |age=, |birth=, and |death=. I'm content to leave age in the template, but mark it as "(if not obvious)". This is to take care of character that are much younger or older than they appear. As for date of birth and date of death, I can only think of xxxHolic and Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle where several character's dates of birth hold any significance.
Other fields to weigh their value.
  • nationality: Nationality of character (if integral to the story). Not to be confused with ethnicity. (Widely abused when used as nationality isn't often integral to the story. Perhaps its usage should be cleaned up.)
  • class: Class or grade of character (if integral to the story). (rarely relevant)
  • occupation: Occupation of character. (rarely used and often abused when used?)
  • title: Any titles held by character. (rarely relevant)
Thoughts? —Farix (t | c) 01:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Our infobox has no fewer than ten auxiliary fields - surely, if all of the fields you listed are so rarely used, wouldn't it be better to just replace individual usage with these custom fields? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Animanga character infobox field review

I not enthusiastic about starting a straw poll so early, but I like to kick off the discussion about what to do with certain fields. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Last appearance

  • Remove Last appearance can be tricky, especially when dealing with ongoing multiple media franchise. In most cases, it is better to leave this blank, especially when the character's last appearance is the last release of the series. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Farix. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Farix. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Farix. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Whack —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Shread Shread this up into tiny pieces - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - show me a case for this field to be used, and I'll show you a perfect case for one of the custom fields. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Age

  • Limit to cases where the character's approximate age is not obvious based on the character's appearance. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo as this would be too much work to be constantly policing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • We could always add a check to see if the field is in use and add it to a maintainable category. However, if there are a lot of these, it may not be worth doing. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo - I think such information is best kept here, rather than somewhere in the article lead. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo Agree with NihonJoe and Pip25. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would much rather remove it entirely that keep the status quo. It's very rare that the character's age is relevant to the story. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • In a genre where so many works deal with children and young adults? I'd say on the contrary that ages are often story-relevant. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Characters ages either change or don't during a series, but it is rarely relevant to know the exact age. If it is relevant, cover it in the text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo Age is fine the way it is now, it also tells the reader a bit about the character and makes for a good article read. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - a character's exact age is rarely relevant to the plot of a series, and there are plenty of cases where a character's age changes throughout a series - in such cases, what age should we put? Their age at the beginning of the series? The end? What about when a character is oldest midway through the series (possible with series which venture into the dangerous waters of deep time travel)? Or should we list the character's age range, and if so, how? What about series which don't use an Earth-like time scale? A character's age often has some bearing on the plot of a series, granted, but usually knowing a character's general age is sufficient to properly understand the plot, and a separate infobox parameter isn't necessary for this. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Where the character's age changes relatively little (like less than 10 years or so), minimum and maximum values (16-19) would be informative I think. If the series covers a huge time period (such as Dragon Ball), then this field is unnecessary. Just because some series go crazy with this topic does not mean the information shouldn't be kept in all others. --Pip25 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove I think Dinoguy has summed this up nicely. In fact I can think of an example where the character has different a age at the start of the story between media versions! The specific age is rarely necessary to know, and certainly not enough to justify an entry in the infobox.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gender

  • Limit to in cases where the character's gender is not obvious. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove unnecessary for the infobox. Even real-life bio articles don't list sex. It doesn't need to be obvious from the picture, the opening sentence and entire article make it pretty clear. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The one problem I have with limiting here are characters like Ranma that at one point or the other are both genders in the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How about putting "See article" or "Subject to change" here then? ;) --Pip25 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - even in trans-gender cases like Ranma, there is almost always a base gender, and the character should usually be referred to in relevant articles as if they are that gender (e.g. Ranma should usually be described as a "he", not a "she"). The absence of a gender field from {{Infobox person}} is very telling here. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Dinoguy and collectonian.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Species

  • Limit to non-human characters only. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo as this would be too much work to be constantly policing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This would actually be very trivial to enforce as all that is needed is to check to see if |species= is set to Human or [[Human]] (which the template currently does). —Farix (t | c) 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I also think it's fine to just leave it as it is. I think time would be better spent doing other things. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Either remove or leave, but limiting it will pretty much be impossible. Human or not is in-universe detail that is unnecessary for the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, for much the same reasoning as Collectonian. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo or Limit per Farix. Non humans (yes this includes kitten androids) should recieve this title to avoid confusion if it is limited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit I really have mixed feelings on this. it depends if it's really relevant to the story. but i doubt anyone will be confused just by not knowing what species the character is.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit - most non-human characters are of a humanoid species which is, for all intents and purposes, identical to humans except for a single trait or ability, or a small number thereof. For all such cases, I don't see the point in specifying the species in the infobox. In addition, many series use their own in-universe names for various species, further limiting the usefulness of this field for general readers. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. 9 times out of 10 this will be Human. If it's not, and is relevant, it will be mentioned in the first or second sentence of the lead.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

  • Remove In most cases, the character's date of birth is unimportant. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Indeed not really informative. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove characters are neither born nor do they die. Excessive in-universe details to have in the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - can only be relevant in works set in this world, or something close to it, and even there ... —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of death

Nationality

  • Limit to cases where the series the characters' nationality is a relevant plot point (anime or manga based around an ongoing war or armed conflict) —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit Looks to be a good compromise. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Again, nationality is an excessive bit of in-universe details that is not an overview of the character, but a side note much like gender. Make it clear from the lead and text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Either Whack or limit per Farix. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Preferably remove in favor of a custom field, but I can live with limiting per Farix. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • LimitI would have to agree with farix. in points where nationality is relevant to the series, it should be ok to use.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. If relevant, this will be in the lead.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note many things can be on the lead. anyways it would also be if its hard to destinguish from one to another.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit - there are specific reasons and it is also in the main template character template (there isn't a clear reason to why its almost never needed for anime/manga).陣内Jinnai 05:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Class

  • Neutral —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove meaningless. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What's that supposed to be -- homeroom at school? character class in a fantasy setting? Unclear enough it's a whack. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this referring to what rank a character is in a war anime/manga series? If so I would Limit it to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - this is far too ambiguous to be useful. Where noting a character's "class" is really necessary, a custom field (with a properly descriptive (i.e. unambiguous) label) should be used. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. Ambiguous and of questionable benefit.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation

Title

  • Neutral (ex. Knight of Zero) Some cleanup in this area is need. I'm not sure if military ranks should be included in this field as they can frequently change. Same goes for elected officials. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove excessive in-universe detail and mostly meaningless for the real-world significant of the character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Whack —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - as with class above, this is too ambiguous to be useful, and is subject to change in addition. Once again, a custom field should be sufficient when it must be noted in the infobox. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit - there are specific reasons and it is also in the main template character template (there isn't a clear reason to why its almost never needed for anime/manga).陣内Jinnai 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Known relatives

  • Limit to character relevant to the story. If a character has an relative that plays no part in the story, then the relatives should not be listed. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove G.A.Stalk 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Status quo Like age, relatives have a better time fitting in the article's infobox. The list should be kept a reasonable length, but I don't feel 'story relevance' is the best universal criteria here. --Pip25 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove again, excessive in-universe details to have in the infobox and frequently home of stuff that doesn't even belong in the article proper. Who their in-universe relatives is not something to highlight in the infobox. The infobox should highlight the overall aspects of the character, primarily its real-world bits, not tons of in-universe, minute detail that frequently is irrelevant and meaningless. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix, as relationships do have story relevance, and what the character is in the story is one of the things people come to articles to learn. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit per Farix - Naruto's parents' identity is pretty important to the plot of that series (certainly his father's, and strongly hinted that his mother's identity will play a role in the future), but his grandparents' or other relatives' identities, if they were to be revealed, would not be worth noting in the infobox, if at all. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Limit similar to Farix, but i would say if the relative is a recurring character and is at least in the list. But if the relative is important for one short story out of dozens of other short stories, or if it only plays a small role for one moment in the series, then it should not be added in.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Results

I had hoped that there would have been more discussion, or more explanation of everyone's positions instead of plain !votes. But there are a few things that are clear. There is no support to keep |last=, |born=, |death=, |class= and |occupation= in the infobox as these were considered unimportant details. Barring any objections, I'll remove these fields sometime next week. There is very strong support for removing |title= as well, though my concern is that this information will instead show up in either the |nickname= or |alias= fields (it already does in some cases). A couple of editors !voted to remove all in-universe information from the infobox, however, I believe this defeats the purpose of an infobox, which is to quickly summarize the important points of the character. In-universe detail are among the important points, therefor they should not be completely eliminated. So for those who !voted to remove all of the in-universe details, what in-universe details do you think are important? —Farix (t | c) 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

These fields have now been removed. See Category:Infobox animanga character maintenance for articles that need to be cleaned up. —Farix (t | c) 01:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be an article about any controversy/criticism that the medium has attracted? There has certainly been enough to warrant at least a short article. It seems as if an important facet has been ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.173.64 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for that. Any noteworthy, neutrally written controversy/criticism belongs in anime and manga, respectively, not singled out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing volumes of a series

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Since we have a lot of series, I'll start here. What's the current best-practices for including the volume number for a series in a {{cite book}} reference? I've seen it handled a number of different ways, but the two commonest seem to be to included it as part of the series title:

  • Mangaka, Big-Name (2010). Big Dumb Shounen Adventure!, volume 3. Excited Title Press. p. 193.

and in the separate volume parameter:

  • Mangaka, Big-Name (2010). Big Dumb Shounen Adventure!. Vol. 3. Excited Title Press. p. 193.

Which is preferred? If not, indeed, another way ... —Quasirandom (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to prefer the first myself, but its partially just because its clearer to me. The first is what was used with List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, if it matters any. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I usually use it as well, for that reason. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact is that {{cite book}} handles volume numbers very poorly. It doesn't make clear that the bold "3" in your example is a volume number and not something else. Now I have seen |volume=Volume 3, but then there is still the unnecessary use the bold font. It also looks silly from a markup point of view. —Farix (t | c) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the first method myself for the reason TheFarix pointed out above. However, I format it as Big Dumb Shounen Adventure! 3 (to use your example). ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm -- that bare number kinda gets lost, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
True. Then I guess Big Dumb Shounen Adventure!, Volume 3 is better. I prefer that volume be capitalized. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Either way, as far as I'm concerned. And -- heh -- checking places I've added volume citations, it looks like I do both upper- and lower-cased, about evenly. I can live with capitalized by preference. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree it doesn't handle volume numbers well. They did fix the issue of using title for citing an entire series.
Kobayashi, Jin (2002–2008). School Rumble (in Japanese). Vol. 1–22. Japan: Kodansha. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
({{cite book|year=2002-2008|author1=Kobayashi, Jin|authorlink=Jin Kobayashi|series=''School Rumble''|volume=1–22|publisher=Kodansha|location=Japan|language=Japanese}}>)陣内Jinnai 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That's good to hear. Not entirely useful here, but still good. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no "current best-practice". Best practices are outlined by guidelines and the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is little more than a paraphrase of "do whatever you want". Goodraise 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Or, as long as it isn't wrong, use whatever style already exists in an article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

'Virtual' Child Porn Ban

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just pointing out this news.

There are articles that may be affected Child pornography laws in Japan (not one of our project), Lolicon and the mangaka/anime artist BLPs article who signed the manifesto/statement.

So better stay alert for "weird" edits in those areas :( --KrebMarkt 08:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Help, episode list

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

From this [4]

To this [5]

Dunno how to fix it. Don't see place to specifically ask this kind of help, so I'm asking here. 75.72.219.104 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jury rigged. I can only stress you to find more reliable source to assert broadcast dates and episode titles. --KrebMarkt 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how ANN is also used in the Sailor Moon episode list for a while now, and its ANN, pretty sure they're reliable. 75.72.219.104 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, ANN's encyclopedia is not reliable as it is user edited. Its still being used on lower quality articles does not make it right. As KrebMarkt has noted, this list needs those refs removed and replaced with proper, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the source with a reliable one. It's a bit tricky for inexperienced users to cite from a web archive so i did it as an example since near all further references in this article will come from archives. I hope you get this trick. --KrebMarkt 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposing Crayon Shin chan merges

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I found Talk:List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (Shin'ei) - A user argued that Talk:List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (Shin'ei) and Talk:List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (FUNimation) should remain separate. Since the parent Crayon Shin-chan covers the manga, the original anime, and both versions of the dubbed anime, I think both of them should be merged. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal Against Plot Sections

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be closed now. But I get the nagging suspicion that this was another attempt to remove so-called "spoilers" from articles. —Farix (t | c) 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There will always be people who want to remove it. It seems clear that they are in the minority. Even Gavin Collins didn't want to go so far as the original proposal.陣内Jinnai 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Would putting a disclaimer on the pages saying that the reader could possibly be looking at spoilers help any bit? I understand the point and there are ways to handle it in a way not as extreme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Such a disclaimer will be so indiscriminate (all Wikipeida articles must has the disclaimer) that it would be worthless. It would also contradict Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. But also, how do you verify that an article has "spoilers"? The simple answer is that you can almost never verify that a particular plot detail is a spoiler, and most "judgments" of what are or are not "spoilers" are based on personal opinions (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). And lastly, the spoiler warning itself is a product of a knee-jerk paranoia that it is somehow dangerous to know certain plot details ahead of time. Indulging that paranoia is entirely non-scholarly and contrary to Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be akin to putting a disclaimer on every page "The information on this page may not be completely accurate." because everyone knows Wikipedia is a community effort and different pages are in different states. That isn't helpful at all.陣内Jinnai 01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FLCL

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

ok i fixed the List of FLCL characters article in a form where it's understandable and well sorted, but users are reverting and adding more. they keep adding more tables and i dont know how to fix it on my own without my edits getting reverted.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored, though the heading needs fixing (see WP:MOSHEAD) and the bolding in character sections removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks! hopefully no more reverts will be done. and I'll see what i can do with the heading and the bolding on the character section.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A bot generated list has been created for unreferenced BLPs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs. This list will be updated daily by the bot. Because of the way the bot operates, Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles temporarily contains all pages in article space that are tagged with the project banner. —Farix (t | c) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also consider linking the bot to Category:Anime and manga biography work group articles instead – it contains all BLP articles currently listed (but may not necessarily include new ones). G.A.Stalk 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
One more list :(
Note that i have nothing against it save that as all lists toying categories and/or project banner it's incomplete and sometime include articles that has nothing to do with our project. --KrebMarkt 07:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Future GPX Cyber Formula Characters

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just started this page, unless anyone objects can I go ahead and redirect the following articles: Hayato Kazami, Naoki Shinjyo, Karl Richter von Randoll, and Bleed Kaga to List of Future GPX Cyber Formula Characters? I just merged the basic character and personal family information into the character list (Minus infoboxes and such), everything else is too inuniverse information in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  Resolved
I just went bold and did it myself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed from the cleanup listing. Another series done.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well not quite, the new list itself is still in need of cleanup and expansion on many of the characters. I am not sure which characters even are notable enough in the anime that belong on the list (Charactors that only appear a few times and dont really help move the plot along dont really need to be added do they?). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Omamori Himari character articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

After nominating Template:Omamori Himari for deletion do to lack of articles in the series. The template's creator has since created a series of stand-alone articles on each character in the series. All of these articles clearly fail WP:NOTE. But since I've already initiated the TfD, it may be more appropriate for someone else to cleanup the articles as well has clean up the mess that was made of the nearly stubish main article. —Farix (t | c) 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The character list shouldn't even have been split on top of everything.--十八 03:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've merged the individual articles to the character article (managing to get the edit summary wrong every time...). We have enough issues with excessive numbers of character issues as it is so I thought it best to get them out of the way. I'm split over the need for a separate list, but I don't see the point in merging it back now and I've merged the otherwise redundant character section in the parent article into the plot section per most of our articles these days that go through heavy rewrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 06:14, March 20, 2010
I suspect I may be to blame at least for the character list being split, since in my !vote in the deletion discussion, I mentioned that there may have been potential for a separate character list. However, I certainly wouldn't support the way it was done, or the subsequent creation of the half-dozen or so character stubs. =/ --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Anime directors and Japanese animators

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

What is the difference between categories Category:Anime directors and Category:Japanese animators? Help me to figure this out, please, because I feel like an idiot. :) -- deerstop. 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the logic is that just because someone is a Japanese animator does not mean they work on anime, nor does it mean they are a director - I would say that the "Japanese" is a reflection on the individual's nationality, rather than on the type of animation they work on. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense, on the surface most entries will belong to both cats but that doesn't make them redundant to each other.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
But animator is an artist who works on animation, which is anime (in Japan). -- deerstop. 18:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone who's Japanese doesn't have to work in Japan. Also, someone working on anime doesn't have to be Japanese. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
And just because an animation is being made in Japan - even if by Japanese animators - it's not automatically anime. It's usually a safe call, but there's gonna be a case every now and then where it isn't. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The most obvious difference is that directors are not always animators, and vice-versa. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, director and animator are two very different jobs. Doceirias (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! -- deerstop. 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bleach Watch

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some folks may want to keep an eye on the Bleach article, with today's announcement that Warner Brother's is trying to get the rights to do a live-action film version.[6] Considering what happened with Dragonball Evolution and the mess before and after its release, the article may come under increased vandalism from upset fans. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already had to fix the new additions that were claiming things that weren't actually true (like suggesting its a done deal when theyare actually just in talks). I've also replaced the source with something more suitable for a project under our scope (i've no idea if the source originally added is reliable for one).Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Slayers episodes

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier today someone added some copyvio summary to this list. I reverted but now entirely different copyvio summarys have been added by the same user. I'm having difficulty restoring the previous copyvio free version through my phone, can someone else have a go please? Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and law welcome left. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Maison Ikkoku chapters problem

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Viz, in their infinite wisdom, published things out of order and even skipped chapters when they first published the Maison Ikkoku manga in North America. So, the first collections they published do not directly correspond to the the Japanese volumes. They originally published 14 volumes collecting what they decided to originally publish of the manga. Since then, they have released the "Editor's Choice" editions which directly correspond to the Japanese volumes. So, which one do I use for the chapter list? I think I should use the original Japanese manga and the Editor's Choice collections to make the list, but this may confuse people due to the first English editions' titles being used for the current woefully-under-completed list. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we tend to go with the original to resolve such issues on several other things, I'm just going to go with the original chapter order and put an explanation in the lead of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, look, one of my chapter lists... I've noticed that a lot of manga series released in the 90's tend to have been released chapter-by-chapter, with chapters missing, out of order, different chapter ranges to a volume, etc. Makes our job ridiculously hard. Since you asked, you've probably noticed that we haven't really established any one way to handle series like this, probably because not many people are masochistic brave enough to try. Since the "Editor's Choice" edition is complete, though, I have no problem with using the original chapter order and simply having an explanation in the lead, though I don't think we generally list multiple dates in the table like that. Eh, whatever, after all the other expansion you did on this chapter list for me, I'm not gonna complain. =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think listing them in original order is the best way so as to not confuse people. If some company was retarded and released things out of order for some bizarre reason which makes sense only to them (if even that), we should make a note of it and leave it at that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

which is the adaptation?

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

OK, I've recently searched a few manga/anime articles, and i noticed that the manga is considered adaptation despite it being released before the anime. I really don't mind this, but is there a way to tell if an article is just focusing on the anime rather than the anime, or that the anime is actually the original, while the manga is an adaptation. maybe we could mention in the article despite it being released first, the manga is considered the adaptation?.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some examples would be nice.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on a series you've noticed this with? I know with The Vision of Escaflowne both manga are adaptations of the anime, despite one coming out first, but that history is spelled out in the article. If the manga is the adaptation but came out first, it should be specified in the article, preferably with reasons why (if available). If not, as is often the case, its more likely the anime fans just happened to do more on the article and it needs to be flipped to properly cover the original work as its primary focus.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

well for one, there is Red Garden and Romeo x Juliet. those two are pretty good examples.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say both need some sourcing and details on the manga being adaptations, however with their being released so close to the anime, it seems likely they are. ANN Encyc, while not an RS, does also state RG's manga is an adaptation (may want to check the official site as well). Romeo X Juliet is confirmed its the official JP site in their March 8, 2007 news tidbit[7] Its been my observation that usually if the manga is original work, you'll see a bigger gap between its release and its being picked up for anime adaptation. The manga being an adaptation also seems somewhat common with some Gonzo titles (again, casual observation). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

oh ok, i see now. this makes it easier.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also the likelihood like Welcome to the NHK where the anime and manga are adaptations of a (light) novel or .hack where the anime was released concurrently with a video game (hack//Liminality as it was later called). For the former its easy to list them both as adaptations, but for the later, I'm not sure.陣内Jinnai 17:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the case of .hack, all of them were adaptations of the video game, though Bandai went into it developing all of them at the same time, really. The main focus, though, and the main series, was the video game series. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: Pointing out at Angel Beats! which is from its initial conception a mixed media franchise. The difficulty with such franchise is to identify which release would be considered the main one and what cover should we pick for the infobox. --KrebMarkt 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I'd section this out (and this is only my opinion, but whatever we decide to be updated in WP:MOS-AM) is to list all the main media first under a "Original Media" or "Original Works" section. Then any later releases (other than direct sequals) under "Adaptations" section. Under first section, list them in order of release if possible. If there are no exact dates or they were released at the same time, list anything released in English first before stuff released only in Japanese. The order should be mirrored for the "adaptations" section. Beyond that, we should just leave it up to more local consensus.陣内Jinnai 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to prefer the existing media format, which does put the original work first, as well as making it the focus of the rest of the article, then adaptations follow. If we are going to separate it, however, I would suggest doing something closer to what is done with regular novels, where in the details for the original media would be put under Publication history, production, or the like, then the rest would be under the Media section, which would then be renamed to adaptations (for an example, see Bambi, A Life in the Woods) One problem with that approach, however, is that often times soundtracks are not adaptations, but we do include them under media, so we'd have to then make a separate media section for the soundtracks and the original media release (volumes or episodes, respectively). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Collectonian, KrebMarkt seems to be saying that model fails when we are dealing with works that have multiple original works, ie concurrent or near-concurrent releases. When we deal with traditional ones where one media is released first, then the current model still works.陣内Jinnai 03:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your reply as meaning a change for all articles, rather than just the ones like Angel Beats! Unless I'm missing something, though, aren't the light novels the original works for that series? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into the 1 month advance release of the light novel. It appears the media were developed concurrently and so they are all original works; none of them are adaptations.陣内Jinnai 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...I'm guessing the studio has one it considers the start, if we could find some sourced production information. Kind of like, maybe Blood+, where the anime is the primary work, but the novels and manga were done fairly concurrently (same with Escaflowne, as noted above). There has to be something cohesive that connects them beyond the title. I mean do they basically have the same story and characters or are they all totally different? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Angel Beats! is an original concept created by Jun Maeda, with original character design by Na-Ga. Maeda also wrote the screenplay for the anime, so you could say that is the original work, but really, the series was created to not have a proper original material. Basically, all of the works are adaptations off of Maeda's original concept, but in the case of the anime, the script is actually majorly written by Maeda, as said here. The "light novel" short stories predate the anime as a sort of prequel to the anime and manga series, but are still written by Maeda himself.--十八 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to consider the anime the primary work in that case, then, with the production section emphasizing the original concept creation and the original screenplay, and noting that it was created to note have a central focusing media. Then do the media section much as it is now, probably, chronologically? That one is an unusual case, to be sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you both for your replies. I'm inclined toward the anime release as main "dish" but i feared a pro-anime bias from my part. Your replies comfort my position. --KrebMarkt 09:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

that's odd, i was going by the novel, well from the format it's in right now.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Novel or serial novel?

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Is Coo: Tōi Umi kara Kita Coo a novel or a serial novel? Don't know which infobox to use... –Cattus talk 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a rudimentary breakdown, though not always prefect:
  • Novel: A book, typically containing one whole story that is independent on other published works and published in one installment.
  • Serial novel: A novel or novella whose chapters are published individually in a magazine or other literary publication. A serial novel may eventually be published as a full novel at a later time.
  • Novel series: Typically a series of novellas, but could be full novels as well, that tells a continues story over multiple volumes.
Note that in the infobox, we don't make a distinction between serial novels and novel series, so both |type=serial novel and |type=novel series will trigger the same set of fields. On the other hand |type=novel will only trigger fields related to a single published work. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If it was originally published as seperate chapters, it is a serial novel, even if it spans multiple novels. If you don't know, just use the generic term novel until you find anything better. If you cannot even find that info, given what little you have, I'd question if it is really notable.陣内Jinnai 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This article need a rename to Tōi Umi kara Kita Coo. This one can pass the BP:BK with argument of the Naoki Prize and the anime film by Toei Animation. Additionally from the ja wiki article, there is also clue of a radio show adaptation or something similar on the NHK radio. Also from the ja wiki article, its mentioned a serialization between June 1987 and February 1988 but this still need to be verified with RS. --KrebMarkt 23:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The Japanese article also mentions a manga adaption. The chapters were serialized in Yasei Jidai, and collected in a single volume. The article also claims the movie is far more successful and famous, but that's tagged with citation needed. Doceirias (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So should we go with the serial novels infobox and slap a citation needed on the serialization thing? Cattus talk 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean slapping a {{cn}} in the |type= field? That won't work as it will cause the infobox component to label it as a manga, which is the default set of fields. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
But can't it be mentioned in the article that it was serialized in Yasei Jidai from June 1987 to February 1988 and {{cn}} that? I can't find aything before 2003 on the magazine page: [8]. I only found this on the Kadokawa site, but the publication date is 1992! So that's the only thing we can reliably source for now... Cattus talk 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the time, the novel itself will mention a serialization somewhere. Consulting a copy of that may source it. Doceirias (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Use that one for the 1988 release. Note that many publishers don't keep information of previous edition of their books. --KrebMarkt 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Cattus talk 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanked the page?

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Could my account have been hacked? I was undoing an edit on the excel saga page and the next thing I know this page, the excel saga page/talk page is blanked by me it said. I never blanked anything is the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Happened to me twice ([9], [10]) while I was editing another article on March 15. Hasn't happened since though.... ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks, good to hear im not alone it is prob just a glitch. I did notice that after I edited the history failed to record my edit, this happened twice, once when I reverted an edit by an ip, and again when I reverted an unexplained blanking of the excel saga page (It says someone else reverted it). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the page was blanked by me again without me even being on, sorry for this, I have asked an admin for help on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
As a precaution, I would change the account's password. You can change your password in your preferences. Your account may have been compromised. You should also leave a notice on WP:AN about the problem. You apparently don't have a User:Knowledgekid87/monobook.js, so that rules out a wayward script. —Farix (t | c) 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed my Password and contacted an admin about the problem, everything should be ok now, if things contune I will mention it on the admin noticeboard and rechange again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll also note that if there are other people who have access to your computer, you may want to log out of Wikipedia completely. When you log back in, do not tell the server to remember you. —Farix (t | c) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Including All English Dubs?

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Most anime only have one, maybe two English dubs, but Dragon Ball has been dubbed by eight different companies: Harmony Gold in 1988 (dubbed only one movie and the first five episodes as a pilot), Creative Products Corp. 1992~1996, FUNimation 1995~now, Westwood Media 2000~2003, AB Groupe 2001~2003, two unknown companies, and Bandai 1997 (video game Final Bout).

For character pages, every single English VA is listed except the ones from Creative Products' dub, AB Groupe, and the two unknown companies. The voice cast used by AB Groupe and the two unknown companies is unknown, so of course they aren't listed, but some of the cast from Creative Products' dub is known. So shouldn't they be listed too? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If they are known (and preferably can be verified) then they should be added. Verification being the problem.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Because there are so many it may be okay to actually create a table for them and list the VAs there. Having 8+ VAs in a row for Goku doesn't exactly make for smooth flowing or engaging prose.陣内Jinnai 05:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There are 14 known for Goku, so a table sounds great. But I have another problem. The credits for Creative Products' dub doesn't say who the voice actors voice, so I had to ask them personally through Facebook, email, et cetera. How do I cite such a source? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't. Regardless of the validity of the information, email and facebook etc can't be used as reliable sources.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That's lame, but I guess it'll have to do. None of the other VAs have sources listed anyways. Thank you for your help. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The Ocean Group did a DBZ dub (according to their article, they've done the first three movies and two seasons for FUNi, and did more for broadcast in Canada, the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands), is that included under Funimation, or would that be one of the two unknown companies? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the unknown companies would be the producer of the Maylasian English dub distributed by Speedy, and the producer of the Filipino English dub of two of the Brolli movies. By the way, The Ocean Group changed their name to Ocean Productions back in 2006 or 2007. That page is very wrong. It says that Ocean Studios changed to Ocean Productions and that The Ocean Group stayed the same, but if you watch any anime dubbed by them since 2007, you'll see that The Ocean Group is now Ocean Productions and Ocean Studios remains the same. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to ask: does it matter which country an English dub was made or aired? The Harmony Gold dub was made in the US, the FUNimation dubs were made in the US or US and Canada depending on the dub, the Geneon dubs was made in the US and Canada, the Bandai dub was made in Japan and the US, the Creative Products Corporation dubs was made in the Phillipines, and the Westwood Media dubs was made in Canada. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally we don't worry about the country of origin unless it is particularly note-worthy for some reason. Instead noting the dubbing studio is enough.陣内Jinnai 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The table idea was rejected, but I reorganized and re-wrote the paragraphs to make them easier to understand. Hopefully this doesn't get reverted too. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of sister portal

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brewing edit war in Anime and Manga

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would someone else like to deal with this?[11][12] Apparently, Koolabsol (talk · contribs) has issued and edit war threat towards me.[13] (full discussion) —Farix (t | c) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's being discussed on ANI here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source check

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Can someone review the three remaining third-party sources in the article Yu Ominae and determine if they are reliable?

—Farix (t | c) 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyberdojo hosts copyvio material, the other two seem to be random fan blogs.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
So the entire "Reception" section should be spiked as it is not based on reliable sources. With the other edits I've done in this article series, I'm sure I made some Spriggan fanboy cry. —Farix (t | c) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It really does need an almighty mega merge, but please don't add it to the cleanup page, theres more then enough work there already :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm done some merging of the stand-alone character articles into a character list and the list of media back into the main article, which was inappropriately spun out. Someone failure with the series should go through the list of minor characters and remove those that are incidental and merge the more significant characters into the main character list. —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired, Anyone else want to take a crack at cleaning up some of the articles, possibly merging a couple of the character articles into the list? You can find the series navbox here. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All the character articles have now been merged into List of Spriggan characters except for those on List of minor Spriggan characters. I would prefer someone failure with the series to move over any remaining significant characters and then just redirect the article to the main list. Otherwise, I would just redirect the article myself without merging any of the remaining characters. —Farix (t | c) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another website for review:

I'm not having much confidence of this website though. —Farix (t | c) 11:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by the existence of this topic - don't we have criteria for online sources somewhere, instead of basically making a poll about it? --Pip25 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the criteria requires evaluation, and these sorts of topics are requesting assistance with that evaluation or confirm that others concur. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. I tried looking into this but didn't find any specific criteria for online sources to be used here. Can you point me to the right direction? --Pip25 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There are the usual WP:RS and WP:SPS which are mostly useful for sources asserting facts. However i don't think this is what you are looking for so i will point you to an under construction essay. Note, This is still an essay with all disclaimers that go with it but it can give highlights on why evaluating a source for its reviews can turn into a brainstorming session. --KrebMarkt 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, that really isn't much. Thanks though. --Pip25 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Otaku2.com

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Otaku2.com may appear on the surface to look like a random blog, however large quantities (most of it at a glance) is written by Patrick W. Galbraith, author of The Otaku Encyclopedia. Seems like an RS to me, thoughts?Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me too. I've added it to the CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 13:52 27 March 2010 (GMT)

Editor removing release date citations from chapter lists

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, Piano non troppo (talk · contribs) has been removing the refs on release dates on a few chapter lists, most recently List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle chapters, claiming that the links violate WP:SPAM and that the release dates do not need refs because "no one will question them". See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#TV show links to commercial site and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links. All of his removals have been reverted (the most recent one by me), but I'd like to confirm the project's position on this matter. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. The "project's position" is irrelevant. All release dates need to be sourced to comply with policy, because I am not no one and I question them all. Goodraise 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, so now all editors who have taken articles to FL/FA and actually used reliable sources are really just "spamming" Wikipedia? ~grumble~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The same user did this in February and got a ticking off by myself and someone else on his talk page, and it even went to ANI, although I don't think anything came out of it. The user has no interest in anything other then his personal interpretation and refuses to listen to common sense. They even removed links to the publishers official site! It's pure vandalism, any reasoning for it being spam is pure Bollocks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Verifiability is mandatory for article quality so ditch WP:SPAM as BS argument in this case. --KrebMarkt 07:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gin Tama

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday a user added reception detail based on fan rankings at MyAnimeList. I reverted stating it was not a reliable source and only a fan opinion because of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_42#MyAnimeList_RS.3F this discussion as well my own judgement of the importance of the claim and validity of the source. The user reverted stating Source is reliable and only verifiable facts are stated, to which I have reverted, this time with a link to this discussion. A second opinion would be nice but i don't think there is any weight to give to this claim or that MAL is a reliable source for the same reason we don't give weight to ANN's encyclopedia and user ratings. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only is MAL not a reliable source (its "users" opinions are completely irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes), its also an inappropriate link because of its directs people to fansubs, which is against WP:COPYRIGHT. I thought we'd gotten it blacklisted. I've left him a welcome on his talk page with notes to laws, and a personal note explaining this.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Issue resolved. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of character infobox cleanup

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An IP is undoing the removal of the deprecated fields in {{Infobox animanga character}} calling it "vandalism".[14][15][16][17][18][19] The IP is of German origin. —Farix (t | c) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor? Shouldn't it be at least semi-protected, if not full-protected as a high-risk template?陣内Jinnai 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The template is already semi-protected, but the reversions are occurring on the articles. And here is another one.[20] —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems like he's focusing just on your edits too. All have been reverted and a warning left on his talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick FL?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone wants to give it a whirl, I think List of InuYasha: The Final Act episodes would be a relatively quick FLC to go for. Though editorial efforts as the series has aired, all of the airdates are completely sourced to reliable sources, the summaries have been kept at a reasonable and workable length, and the lead has most of the pertinent details. I think it mostly would need some copyediting/tweaking and an image to be read for a peer review and FLC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagicons in episode lists

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Several times in the past, I have removed the Japanese flag icon from List of Bakugan: New Vestroia episodes and left the US and Canadian flags alone until a more appropriate solution is found (since they switch back and forth as to which aired first). Recently, an IP editor is protesting the removal of the flags stating that readers may "lose track" that the column is the Japanese airdate.[21] The editor has also been adding in airdates from other English language countries, even if they were aired much later than the US/Canada broadcasts. Anyone else want to add their two cents? —Farix (t | c) 02:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the list using any flagicons at all? I'd support just removing them all, not just the Japanese ones. They really never should have been added, I'd think. Also, I'd suggest just limiting the list to the first verifiable English airdate rather than all, otherwise the IP is technically correct in including all English dates. That would appear to be the Canadian in this case. The rest can be noted in summary prose in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
First air dates are already difficult enough to source with Reliable Sources. How many of those can pass the verifiability test? --KrebMarkt 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The "eye" icon in Template:Anime and manga

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is being discussed here. It should get more input. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

List of anime conventions

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I like someone to double check this edit. BunnyHareRabbit (talk · contribs) has already attempted to added several multigenre and redlinked conventions to List of anime conventions despite the list's criteria. This particular edits seems to in the vain that if the other conventions are not qualified for the list, than neither is Anime Boston. He/she has also made two personal attacks on me by first calling me stupid then a jerk. —Farix (t | c) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies a convention for the list then? How do you define an anime only convention? Some conventions such as otakon have LARPing, gaming (In the form of video game rooms), and more than just one genre of people that come. I reverted anime boston but these questions just came to mind here so I readded the one mentioned in Maine. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (Knowledgekid)
A convention whose main focus is anime and/or manga qualifies. Otakon fits that description. Having LARPing, game rooms, etc., in addition to that is fine as long as the main focus of the convention is anime/manga. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jan Valentine

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just noticed that the above article was created by a new user (and it is quite late here, so I cannot do anything about that now:-( G.A.Stalk 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well all of hellsing's character articles are up for merge and this one doesn't try to make itself notable. Redirected back to Millennium (Hellsing).Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fist of the North Star cleanup

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm currently working on cleaning up the Fist of the North Star article. I decided the best way to improve things was to split the article in order to reduce its size, especially considering its already bloated infobox. The New Fist of the North Star OVA and the live-action version both have their own articles now and I'm planning on giving the remaining films and spin-off works separate articles as well. Any advice? Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created a separate article for the The Legends of the True Savior movies. Once again, any advice would be appreciated. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comic LO reference search

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Comic LO has been prodded for deletion. Given that it is one of the more infamous lolicon manga magazines, I would be surprised if there hasn't been coverage of it by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Handley case. Not sure that can help a lot --KrebMarkt 17:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Anon Editor on Asuka article

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's a rather adamant anon editor on the Asuka Langely Soryu article who keeps adding personal notes regarding her role in the Rebuild of Evangelion movies and adding unnecessary information to the info box. After two reversions the anon started to delete templates in addition to readding their edits. I have already issued respective warnings for vandalism and another editor has come to help in maintaining the article. Though I'm not sure if they will take heed. Help would be appreciated. Fox816 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request for the page to be protected and also cleaned up the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  Semi-protected for two weeks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BK

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started a discussion about the third criteria of WP:BK as it relates to animated adaptation of Manga. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AkibaBlog RS review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On a side not from the Comic LO, what is everyone's impression of AkibaBlog?

AkibaBlog: http://www.akibablog.net/ (English)

AkibaBlog is frequently used by Anime News Network as a source of information. The English version, while it was running, had the support of Himeya Soft USA.[22]

It's a bit sketchy for meeting the requirements as a reliable source. Its best claim is that it may meet WP:SPS since Anime News Network republishes, though never quotes, information from the blog in it's news reports. —Farix (t | c) 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As it's being used by ANN for news sourcing, it appears to be reliable. Seems to be above the level of the normal SPS, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, we also previously decided that animenews.org or whatever was a RS based on how ANN was sourcing using it.
I've also added AkibaBlog to the CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 17:45 5 April 2010 (GMT)
This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Funimation Entertainment" vs "Funimation"

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

While cleaning several infobox's, I've noticed many that list "Funimation Entertainment" as the English licensee. The problem is that this is a long name and often wraps when there are two or more flagicons preceding it. IMO, this is an undesirable situation. So I would suggest that as a norm, that the name be shorten to just Funimation. The same should probably go for Seven Seas Entertainment (Seven Seas) and Madman Entertainment (Madman), which face similar problems. —Farix (t | c) 21:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to prefer using the actual real name, versus the shortened, but not a major issue, really. There shouldn't be any flagicons which would fix part of the problem). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I like to remove the fields completely leaving only the Japanese companies' information, which would eliminate both problems. Unfortunately, too many editors insist that the English information be treated on the same level as the Japanese information. —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to reopen debate, but I strongly want to keep English release information in the infobox. I've come around to letting go releases in other languages, but English releases mean, among other things, being able to tell at a glance "can I get a copy of this?". As for the name, I'm kinda included to use the short forms in infoxboxes. After all, we already don't include things like "Inc." and "Ltd." —Quasirandom (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is the English language Wikipedia, so we should be including the English language release information if applicable. Removing it is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. I could see reducing it to the first English release (similar to episode/chapter lists and what is done with films, television, and novels (just in the infobox, of course, with other relevant mentioned in prose as available), but this is still the English language Wikipedia so including at least that much English language information is necessary, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
it's really difficult for trademark names nad japanese names such as these because they're both english. well, whatever one is more common.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Though whatever keeps the infobox looking "professional" would be best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sazae-san Importance

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at WP:ANIME/ASSESS whether Sazae-san had "lasting impact decades after it was initially released", and should thus be rated as high importance. Input would be appreciated. G.A.Stalk 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we rate Doraemon as high importance? That's one of the 'standards' it's compared with. --Gwern (contribs) 13:14 6 April 2010 (GMT)

Pre-AfD edit war

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hiromasa Yonebayashi - I've deprodded it twice, same guy has re-prodded it twice, I'm not looking to pass 3RR, eyes would be appreciated. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a problem now. FWIW, sofixit was the right response there.

"[Once Ummon asked

a lesser light//
Are you a gardener>//
//Yes// it replied\\
//Why have turnips no roots>\\
Ummon asked the gardener\
who could not reply\\
//Because\\ said Ummon//

rainwater is plentiful]"

--Gwern (contribs) 13:17 6 April 2010 (GMT)
No, "sofixit" was not the right response there. You must have missed the whole discussion of unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs). Basically, the result of that discussion was that new BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must be sourced or they will be deleted (after the prod tag has been in place for 10 days). With the new sort of prod for BLP articles, the article must have a reference supporting one statement in the article before the prod tag can be removed. The tag isn't saying the person is non-notable or even that the person who placed the prod tag on the article thinks it should be deleted, only that the creator of the article didn't provide any references and a reference must be provided for the article to exist. The correct response in that case is to find a reference and add it to the article, then remove the prod tag. Calathan (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen years more of the discussion than you have; the result is stupid, but not nearly as stupid as it could have been, thank goodness.
And I stand by my position. When someone spends more time using templates and reverts to flag a problem than it would take to fix the problem, the proper response is {{sofixit}}. If they have forgotten that the point of Wikipedia is to make good articles and not to spend all our time following process, then they need a reminder. --Gwern (contribs) 14:53 6 April 2010 (GMT)

While gentlemen are discussing here, Farix did it right by putting in-line citations to official anime websites. So kudos to him. --KrebMarkt 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally dislike this new prod process as it doesn't encourage, in fact it discourages, the tagging editor to make an effort to find sources. This one was a very easy case to fix, meaning that it should not have been prodded in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Gwern, I'm just trying to make sure this editor knows what the policy is and why his removal of the prod was reverted. Even if you think a policy is stupid, people have to abide by it, and you shouldn't lead people astray by supporting their actions when they go against policy. Yes, the person who added the prod could have just as easily added a source, but once he does add the prod then it can't be removed until a source is added. Also, IMDB isn't considered a reliable source, and the source added must be reliable. Calathan (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to have this type of "perma-prod", then it should be a requirement that the prodding editor make a good faith effort to find sources and show that sources could not be found. —Farix (t | c) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wakaba-Soh

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this manga really notable? I just got the second book (Came out in January 2010) and couldnt believe that it is a only 2 manga series, could this be a one shot english series maybe? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reliable-source reviews = passes WP:BK = notable. It's certainly not an English series, given Hōbunsha is the original publisher. Given the mixed nature of the reviews, it doesn't really surprise me that it lasted only two volumes. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon Japan's magazine description

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to ask whether the contents of the magazine as descibed in Amazon's listing are reliable or not.

I asked because it can be used as reference for certain series or one-shots serializing in supplementary issues. Here are two links of the April 1 issue of The Hana to Yume and Young Animal Island (Young Animal's supplementary issue), [23] and [24]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaya Sakura (talk • contribs) 06:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer is yes as many Japanese magazines have only the summary/table of content of the current issue without archive of the past issues. --KrebMarkt 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okies, thanks :D Amaya Sakura (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CrystalAcids.com

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is it really okay to use CrystalAcids.com as an external link? It's used in a good number of articles, most of which are voice actors. I can't find anything that tells me it's okay as a link. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...based on the information found on this page, it sounds like they have a small number of people contributing to the site, and the information presented on the site is "checked and double checked" (a quote!) for accuracy, so I would say they could be considered a reliable source due to having an editorial board which reviews everything. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be RS. I can say I "check and double check" everything I put on my personal site, that doesn't make me a reliable source. It seems like just another fansite, run by three friends (two in Dallas, Texas) who are not anywhere near to being industry professionals. And, FYI, one of the four members of the "editorial board" appears to be a fellow Wikipedia editor. Namely our own User:EmperorBrandon. So I'd say no, it is not okay as a link and it is certainly not a reliable source. I'd also be checking to see who added those links (AGF but still...) 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
They don't have to be "industry professionals" nor does it matter one whit if they are Wikipedia editors (unless EmperorBrandon is the one adding the links to the site). It doesn't matter if the people running it are friends, either (most people who work together become friends). This doesn't appear to be a standard blog or site where anyone can contribute. It appears they have editorial controls in place and work to maintain a high level of accuracy in their content. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can make that claim and there is nothing there to support any claim they meet WP:RS. They don't even give their real names, and yes, a reliable source must have some basis to actually claim it is reliable or to claim it is accurate and truthful, not just cause I said so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the question here is whether CrystalAcids.com is a reliable source, but whether it is an appropriate external link. If the site is generally accurate, I think it could be an appropriate external link even if it isn't considered a reliable source (like how Anime News Network's encylopedia and IMDB are used as external links, but not as reliable sources). By the way, EmperorBrandon is technically a staff member of Anime News Network (in that he is listed on their staff page), though I wouldn't consider being an encyclopedia editor for ANN a very significant position. Calathan (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP clean-up drive

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion
Is it worth putting together a team dedicated to going through our mangaka and voice actor stubs, the ones that are nothing more than a list of works/roles, and doing the trivially easy thing of sourcing at least a couple of them? (Leaving notability aside -- sourcing the entirely unsourced is the goal here.) Just to head the storm off at the pass ... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Count me in. I will offer a cookie to any editor who fix 30 animanga unsourced articles. It would be nice if our assessment department point us newly created unsourced BLP. --KrebMarkt 17:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting on this now. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it will not bother any editors, not divert from more important tasks, and not be seized upon by partisans as proof that their brutal approach works? If you think there are no negative effects, well, then, set to! --Gwern (contribs) 17:55 22 January 2010 (GMT)
Thing is that unsourced BLP articles will be either sourced or deleted in near future is a certainty. We just wrestle the right to choose how and when we fight this battle.
I offer cookies & more as form of recognition for editors joining this drive so those who started this "Mini Armageddon" won't be the sole ones to receive praises and accolades. --KrebMarkt 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I did wonder if some sort of drive would work instead of a collab project, but given the lack of interest there seems to be in that, I'm not sure this would be any more successfull. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No matter how we're doing this, I'm in. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here the hideout for the Animanga unsourced BLP clean-up drive. --KrebMarkt 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@Everyone Fill free to add missing unsourced BLPs to the list as there is only unsourced voice actors in the initial listing which is clearly dubious.

12 of 111 done. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I had to go through the list twice, but I managed to do 26. With the 3 done by others, that leaves 82. *collapses* Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
4 more and i owe you a cookie. Thanks ;) --KrebMarkt 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to undelete any bios deleted as a result of this upon request, if the requester has sources to add to it. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: 50 done and 2 Afds. --KrebMarkt 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping in from the Comics Project. We are running a discussion over there on this [25] and there is a handy tool that spits out a list of unsourced BLPs within the general comics area [26] (just scroll down to the bottom and press the "query" button). We've been going through the list addressing those we can properly source and once we have thinned it down it became clear there were areas where we'd need to contact specialists on the subject and that includes the mangaka (and there are also manhwa and manhua creators too if you have any useful resources for them). I see you are already doing a fine job and I just wanted to make sure none were missed (because experiences shows most can be given at least one source - it is just knowing where to look that can be a problem). If there is anything we can do to help feel free to drop us a note in that section I link to. (Emperor (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. For the information. --KrebMarkt 06:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also quite a few seiyū and some mangaka listed here. They are not tagged as such, though. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bumping the topic :p --KrebMarkt 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kind of old news (I'm pretty sure it was already mentioned in a now-archived section), but there is now an automated listing of all unreferenced BLPs within our scope at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs... Can this thread be allowed to be archived now, or is it still needed for any reason? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We can archive it. Done, it will be automatically archived in 10 days. However all the tool tips and Google search tricks aren't in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs page nor the clean-up score board. --KrebMarkt 09:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 
I would happily get a unique award created for editors who can tackle the 180 unreferenced anime living persons articles. Above is an award which we had done for another project. Okip 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There are 180 unreferenced anime living persons articles on the list now. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs. I am glad the bot is working. I will request a special, unique, award for any editors who clean up all, or most of these with sourcing, and putting up for deletion the handful which have no chance of notability. Okip 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Do the 26 I did previously count? :p (in case it isn't clear, thats a joke!) Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hadronic Matter
An overview
 
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:WikiProject Anime and manga books should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All fixed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed for Hakusensha's shoujo manga magazines' articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've been busy adding references to articles like The Hana to Yume, Hana to Yume and Bessatsu Hana to Yume from ANN and Comic Natalie articles. However, I haven't worked on LaLa and LaLa DX. I wouldn't mind if anyone pitch in and give a hand ^^ It'll be difficult looking for those series that are older... Is there any more reliable Japanese sites? I cited Mai Nishikata's Hana no Kishi serialization with the announcement she wrote at her blog. Is that acceptable? In general, are official mangaka websites (even their blog) a reliable source?

Any thoughts and constructive criticisms? りん (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I recommend looking at Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump for how to format such articles and what content to include, as well as a nice way of formatting the series list. Having just a list of series that ran in it, most of which appear to be unnotable, is secondary to focusing on the magazine as a whole. As a side note, there is really no need to put in quotes from the sources for each one. It just clutters the references, especially the Japanese ones, and make sure to add a trans_title for the names of the Japanese sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What are the best Japanese-language magazine articles around? It's kind of hard to compare the English-language magazines to the Japanese-language magazines, if only because there's much more accessible information about the English-language magazines. --Malkinann (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably Weekly Shōnen Jump, since it has a decent amount of info, but still only C class and needs some updates to use our newer template for the series list. There are no Japanese manga magazine articles that are GA or above though. I don't think we even have any at B. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What if the title of the article doesn't correspond to what I need to use as a reference? Amaya Sakura (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice in the Country of Hearts

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Sent to AfD last November, the article has been recreated by Nicolebsb (talk · contribs) under its English title. The article is substantially different from the version that was deleted so it won't qualify for speedy deletion. But has the situation with lacking significant coverage by RS changed since November? And should the current article be deleted to make way for Extremepro's userfied version? —Farix (t | c) 11:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be enough reviews now for it to pass the notability guidelines. Checking just a few sites, I found [27], [28], and [29]. I don't know which version should be used though. Calathan (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Enough to pass the notability guideline for books with more to come with fellow up volumes. --KrebMarkt 16:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, passes WP:BK -- and the reviews aren't only of the first volume, showing continuing interest from critics. I recommend taking any unused info from Extremepro's userfied version and building on what's been done from scratch, rather than whacking and replacing. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
One question, are all these games based on one game and just released on different Consoles, or is it a series of games that all relate to eachother?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I can count 4 PC versions of the game [30][31][32][33]. The PS2 and PSP version are the very same one save for the platform. --KrebMarkt 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
oh ok, i see. thanks, i think this will help the article format much better now.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I moved the userified version back into mainspace briefly, as Heart no Kuni no Alice could be a relevant search term, and merged its contents into the article created by Nicolebsb, adding in the reception links mentioned here. Hope this helps. :) --Malkinann (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
do we need two sections in the infobox for the games that were developed by prototype? it seems to me like a port.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_44&oldid=1143871242"