Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

ComicAttack RS?

Is ComicAttack RS? It's about page: About. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

They seem to be professional reviewers, but without any particular importance in the field. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Discussion here at RS/N. Anyone want to prove that PCS is not just "nothing more than a group blog"? Also, apparently I'm not allowed to contribute to discussion due to not logging in. I can't log in due to using Wikibreak Enforcer on my account. Nor do I want to until after November. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Off topic but what's the point of Wikibreak Enforcer if you are going around it on your IP? :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So I can't create articles or anything that autoconfirmed users can do. Also, logged out makes the editing interface black text on a white background as opposed to a colour-coded interface using wiki-Ed or some other script. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Looking for episode list pointers

Is there anyone who's been through a recent FLC and so knows the current interpretations of the unwritten standards (as well as anyone who isn't a regular FLC reviewer can, anyway) willing to give some pointers for List of Cross Game episodes‎? Sort of an informal peer review while I work on getting a copyedit. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review? --KrebMarkt 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a few minor things, but I think it's pretty ready in terms of MOS applications. Usually the problem in our case is trying to write engaging prose. We've run into issues where people complain that the lead is simply a regurgitation of release dates, so maybe try to find interesting stuff from the plot. FYI, our last episode FL was List of Baccano! episodes. Arsonal (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- that gives me a direction to move toward. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Character sections/Articles

Don't you think we should establish more of the format of anime and manga character articles/sections? Such enforce Main character - Supporting character - Other and/or Protagonist - Antagonist - Other? It seems like it's in inuniverse style if we left them in a certain format dedicated to the series itself rather than just inform. What do you guys think?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm dubious. It'd be nice to go out-of-universe where possible, but where do you find reliable sources that delineate this character is main and that is supporting for the entire cast? Not to mention, for some of the larger series, if everyone who's not a protagonist is lumped into supporting, then you get a BIG lump of characters which need differentiating somehow -- but how? Just a few of the questions that come to mind, that I don't know how to answer. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could give me an example. I honestly don't see how difficult it is to determine a main character from a supporting. You see, i don't really consider this a "problem". If we go to an in-universe structure, the only readers it will be benefitting is the one's who know the universe. If a reliable source puts a character in the "main cast" section, then it would go in the main character section. If it's not, then it can be dicussed and let consensus do the work. What's the "problem" with this format? Bread Ninja (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In two words, original research. Determining whether a character is "main" or "secondary" or "supporting" is an interpretation. That, say, a character has red hair requires no interpretation -- the role she plays in the story does. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But if we keep it like how all the articles are now, it would be done in a structure also in an in-universe style and might even provoke more information. Plus i never heard of a character article done by the color of their hair. It doesn't even seem important to mention the color of the hair unless it was mentioned in the story or gave some type of review on it. Plus you are only focusing on one option. i gave another remember? there is also Protagonist - Antagonist and Other. Look at the List of Naruto characters article. It's a featured list. If we can enforce a out-of-universe structure, than i'm sure t hese articles will improve.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What Quasirandom was going with on hair color is that it is not subjective nor likely to be debatable, unlike classification of whether or not such character is main, secondary, protagonist, antagonist, etc...whichever title they can be labeled with. Any interpretation of character roles falls under original research as it may/will differ depending on who is asked. Whereas you ask anyone what color Haruhi's headband and ribbons are, everyone will say yellow because it is yellow. That's a cold hard verifiable truth. Unless there are sources to back up a character's role and status, we can't separate them based on what we think they may be. For some series such as in Naruto it's pretty cut and dry, for others it's not so much. Fox816 (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite that, you and Quasirandom are still only focusing on one format. And you didn't really give into the idea of Naruto's format. Anyway, what i think is best, is to find some way to make these articles less out-of-universe and also it won't be that much of original universe. sure it will be debateable, but if we think about just one aspect, than we might aswell question the entire wikipedia format b3ecause it's not like this isn't the only thing that is debatable within wikipedia. It's up to use to mkae a guide so it wouldn't be debatable or subjective. It's not like there isn't reliable sources to help them be labeled. And another thing it's not that difficult if we allow to be discussed. Still practically everyone here on WT:ANIME is ignoring this, so they probably don't want to fix the problem.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because the issue is larger than Naruto. For the most popular series, there may well be reliable sources going into all of the cast and their relative roles. But only the most popular, which makes mandating it for all series problematic. But even worse: "It's up to use to mkae a guide so it wouldn't be debatable or subjective." This is exactly something that is not up to us, because directly violates the no original research policy. "Making" a guide, settling the debate, staking down the subjective -- all that is original research, which we must not do, here on Wikipedia. We can only report what others decide. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You meant to say less in-universe and more out-of-universe. Rearranging characters under appropriate sub-headings isn't going to make much of a dent in regards to degree of in-universe content in these articles. True enough it helps and will be needed to be done sometime down the line but if you want to make the character articles more out-of-universe then start by adding info such as character creation, commentary, designs, etc... From there you may come across information regarding roles then we can start classification processes for a given series. There's a ton of titles out there with a ton of characters to their name. Unfortunately it's not as easy to say "this one is main while this one is supporting, here's the proof" for every single series. Another example is the Claymore article, it's one that needs a lot of cleanup and it has a good cast of characters that get enough screen time to warrant a main but few sources as of yet to back those titles up...even harder when "character life-spans" are rather short. Fox816 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one example, of how i thought this would work for supporting and main character sections. for example, the official website would have a list of specific characters in one section and other characters in another or not at all. Those would be the ones listed as secondary or supporting. understand? a larger group of characters doesn't mean it has to have specific sections for themselves. it really doesn't matter if there is a large ammount of characters in a main section or supporting section.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is this is truely a case-by-case basis. Beyond suggesting something like use protagonist/antagonist/other (plus any other applicable groups such as in List of One Piece characters and main/supporting/other (plus....) or vise-versa there really is nothing we can do.陣内_Jinnai 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And given that antagonists become protagonists, etc. I don't think we need a rule for this. It's better to just encourage out of universe information and leave the nitty-gritty organisation of a character list article up to editor discretion. --Malkinann (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Antagonsit Protagonsit is easy, it would depend on how long he was the antagonist, but if it was a mid-way then i guess it would lead to discussion. Encourage out-of-universe isn't the same as enforcing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people would say that the character would have to be listed as he first appeared for ease. Guidelines should reflect what the community actually does, not attempt to enforce or impose a standard. --Malkinann (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Well, the square enix wikiproject article guide does a bit of enforcing. oh well. Either way, we could recommend some of these in the guide aswell. that or at least add it in the guide to mkae it the msot out-of-universe as possibleBread Ninja (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving 365 Days of Manga on Suduvu

Trying to archive any of the MtCG reviews on Suduvu renders badly.

Original Fate Stay Night review --> archived version.

Should we continue webcite-ing this website or trust Thompson's archive to work? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

It's not pretty, but WebCite does the job. The real question is do we have reasonable expectations that the website will disappear in the future? —Farix (t | c) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Suvudu's Whois registry expires May 2012, but that doesn't mean Random House won't extend the registration. Arsonal (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to archive them yet. Unless they say that they will Go Ka-Boom in any future.

I found the bot handling the archiving: User:WebCiteBOT. I suggest FA/FL/GA to use its service. --KrebMarkt 10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We may also be able to rely on Internet Archive. suvudu.com/robots.txt does not seem to exclude any of the actual content. --Gwern (contribs) 12:20 11 July 2010 (GMT)

The weaknesses of Internet Archive are that you don't decide on when the archiving happen and if it did an archive you will only know it +6 months after the archiving action. That why for Wikipedia purpose webcitation has an edge compared to Internet Archive. --KrebMarkt 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the domain later gets squatted, the new owners can update the robots.txt file to make the old website unavailable on Archive.org.--Malkinann (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that remember me what's happened with Popotan official website. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kuri-ousity RS?

Went through the talk page archives and found this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 40#Is Kuri-ousity RS? Since it's RS-ness was "borderline" I put it up for discussion at RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kuri-ousity RS? Yes, I'm trying to find and bring up uncertain or unresolved RS discussions about review websites in the archives.211.30.103.37 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Oo -- I'd forgotten about that one. Good task to set yourself, tying off our old loose ends like this. Thanks! —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AkibaBlog RS?

Started RS/N discussion on this website from previous discussion here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 44#AkibaBlog RS review

RSN Discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AkibaBlog RS? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

MOS-AM and WP:FICT

I don't feel it's appropriate for the MOS to reference WP:FICT as WP:FICT is a proposed guideline and is now much like the GNGs. Per BRD, I've started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Making_reference_to_WP:FICT.3F Thanks for any views. --Malkinann (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Make your comments known in the discussion (and anyone else who cares).陣内_Jinnai 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...I thought I had explained myself more thoroughly there? --Malkinann (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama importance

There is a discussion at WP:ANIME/ASSESS whether Akira Toriyama should be re-assessed as top importance ("Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium") or high importance ("Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments"). Further input would be appreciated. G.A.S^talk 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fushigiboshi no Futagohime

Can someone please take a look at Fushigiboshi no Futagohime? A bunch of information about a third season was added to the article, but there aren't any sources for that and I couldn't find any mention of a third season on the Internet. All the information about a third season looks like a hoax to me, but I wanted to make sure. Also see Shiro Konzaga, which seems related. I couldn't find anything about him from Google other than that he has a deviantArt account. Calathan (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When the information looks that dubious, remove it and require sources before it can be readded. —Farix (t | c) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I noticed you added cleanup tags to the article and labeled the edit as minor, I just want to mention that Help:Minor edit says that you shouldn't label adding tags to an article as minor. I actually have no idea if the things in the help namespace are considered policies or guidelines, but I think it is a good idea to follow them. Anyway, I'll remove the unsourced information about a third season from the article. Calathan (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've already removed the information. Calathan (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the adding of the tags were labeled as minor, it's do to WP:FRIENDLY. I have changed it from it's default behavior. So instead of complaining to me, perhaps you should instead complain to the script writer as I have no control over it. —Farix (t | c) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. Calathan (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Saigado Publishing

After nominating this article for deletion, I took a rather large knife to this article. Here is the original version and this is the version after I removed the sprawling fancruft and refocused the article on the "one-person circle" and tagged most of the remaining statements. —Farix (t | c) 23:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Romaji of non-Japanese words written in Katakana

A discussion concerning the use of romaji for non-Japanese words written in katakana has been under discussion at WT:MOS-JA#WP:VG/GL#Non-English games. Input from this project is requested.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarrification: non-Japanese refers to "English", usually loanwords or titles.陣内_Jinnai 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, non-Japanese refers to any non-Japanese language. Gairaigo from non-English sources include, off the top of my head, アルバイト (German, "arbeit") and クール (French, "cours"). Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is only about English loanwords though.陣内_Jinnai 22:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes at ANN

ANN has changed their newsfeed and now includes more "fan interest" stories along with their general hard news, reviews, columns, and press releases. So the question is, how will this affect using this webiste as a source in the future. Will the "fan interest" stories be part of the "reliable" content or will it be part of the "unreliable" content like the encyclopedia? —Farix (t | c) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess it depends...how are the "fan interest" stories being sourced or where are they coming from? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the first couple of "interest" stories,[1][2] there is no byline and the stories will generally be taken from blogs and other fansites. —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As per [3] you can still get the regular feed at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/ Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly updated WP:ANIME/RS; feel free to hack my text inline better. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reviews and columns will appear in the news feed, but they are considered reliable and it sounded like they plan to add them to the main feed at some point in the future. The current wording on the reliable sources page makes it sound like everything that is reliable will be in the news feed, but I don't think that is the case. Calathan (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there separate feeds for those? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently those aren't listed in the main feed, so there might be a new feed for them once they start listing them in the main feed. Right now you can get recent feature articles at [4], recent columns at [5], and recent reviews at [6]. Calathan (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Danica Davidson RS?/Japanator RS?

Does Danica Davidson meets WP:SPS and by extension WP:RS?

Her list of works include About.com, Graphic Novel Reporter, Anime Insider, Booklist, Comic Book Resources, The Comics Journal, Publishers Weekly and Japanator. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Standard procedure if you're unsure about a source being reliable is to take it to WP:RSN and list the addition on the appropriate Wikiproject talk pages. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremepro does know that, having done it several times in the discussions above -- (s)he's just trying to get first impressions from the project, to see if it's worth pursuing such a stamp of approval. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Manga wiki

I adopted the manga wiki and have imported more than two thousand manga articles listed here in the category "Manga series". [7] Anyone know a way to import over the entire histories instead of just the most recent version, without having to save each one of them one by one? I have AutoWikiBrowser. Does it have a setting for that somewhere? Also, is there a list of every manga article that's ever been deleted? Or just any article ever deleted that has the category manga series in it. Would an administrator be able to easily search for that, and userfy them all for me so I could transwiki them all at once? Dream Focus 10:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your question is probably better answered at WP:TRANSWIKI as only administrators have access to those tools, as far as I know, so only they would know how they work. I seriously doubt, however, that any admin would be willing to undelete every last article on manga ever deleted in the history of Wikipedia. That would be a ridiculously time consuming task, as I would imagine tens of thousands of articles have been deleted in the history of Wikipedia, and I do not think there is a way administrators can search their contents. The closest list is likely Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive, which of course you are already aware of, but it only goes back to 2004 (sporadically then), and of course includes hoaxes and other made up stuff which I'd sincerely hope you have no desire to transwiki anywhere. In either case such a request would probably be best made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Neither item is anything most project members here can really assist with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking they had a search function to search all deleted files for the category listed in the article. Anyway, if any manga fans see an article which is up for deletion that they believe should be saved somewhere, such as one which has been published for years in a notable manga magazine with a high circulation, just copy and paste it over to manga.wikia.com with a tag to where the article originated from. Dream Focus 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why must we have another "comprehensive" database of manga on the internet? Isn't ANN's database good enough and wouldn't it be better to put your effort into improving it instead of creating your own? —Farix (t | c) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANN's database is vastly different than a wiki. New entries to the database must be approved by an ANN staff member, and there is a backlog of over 1000 submissions. Because of this, it can take years for a newly submitted title to be added to the database (they prioritize certain categories of manga such as things licensed in English). Also, while anyone can add most information to ANN encylopedia entries, only a staff member can remove incorrect information. There is also a huge backlog of error reports, and it can often take years for errors to be corrected. So I can see the use of having a freely editable comprehensive manga database. Calathan (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANN really isn't much more than a listing of titles and basic info. I actually have no problems with the manga wikia being expanded to include the many series that are not notable here, particularly if it helps calm down the tension over manga/anime deletions here. A wiki does provide a more structured outlet (when well managed) for more extensive plot and "fan" type information. I do think though it is asking a bit much to expect any admin to take the time to transwiki all of those articles that have been deleted over the years. From my understanding, it would be a fairly time consuming task and seems a rather high expectation when it doesn't improve Wikipedia itself. I think you (Dream Focus) might be better served just asking for maybe the ones from the last month or two, then asking for future ones in your keep !votes in AfDs (if deleted, please transwiki). It would be much better for Wikias, at least if they ever wish to have an air of legitimacy, to focus more on having their own content rather than relying too heavily on the stuff "thrown away" (for lack of a better euphemism) by Wikipedia. Be its own thing instead of a bad imitation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 33 million people a month visit wikia. Whenever people Google for something, they'll usually see the wikia results appear just under the Wikipedia, and they'll know where to go for more information about what they are interested in reading about. Importing things just saves time, and helps get things started, no sense having to rewrite everything from scratch, it all the same information. And of course, if you are interested in reading about an extremely popular manga that has been published in a major manga magazine for years now, then the only place to find that is the wikia, since this group has done a fairly good job of "throwing away" those articles. Dream Focus 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you also intend on importing character, episode and other miscellaneous entries? G.A.S^talk 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out to me. I'll grab them as well. Dream Focus 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your other question (re: export with history) Does Special:Export help (I have never used it before, so I am not aware of its capabilities)? G.A.S^talk 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried that, but the examples listed don't work. I posted last November about it on the proper page [8] but got no reply. Others mention problems as well in various places, it not working right. Dream Focus 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does the history matter a great deal? Most of the editors of those articles likely aren't Wikia users, and from my understanding of the license, you just need to say where you got the specific version copied over, rather than needing to include the entire edit history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about CC-BY-SA 3.0, but the GFDL requires the history (or authors, at the very least) to be preserved in some way - usually, linking to the relevant Wikipedia article, whether in the edit summary of the edit in which the content is copied or via an attribution template, is sufficient, since Wikipedia's copy of the article can be reasonably expected to stay right where it is indefinitely and the GFDL allows linking to the history as a bare minimum. However, pages up for deletion must be handled differently to satisfy the GFDL - the most obvious solution is to export the whole history, which becomes unavailable to most individuals on Wikipedia once the page is deleted; otherwise, I believe providing a list of authors is sufficient (but don't quote me on that; copyright isn't my area by any means). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was discussed elsewhere in detail, and it says as long as you credit it to the original contributors its fine. So the thousands of manga and manga related articles I imported just the most recent version of, link back to the Wikipedia where people can see who created the content. Anything that is up for deletion worth saving, I then save the entire history, and import that. This of course fails in cases where the total history is a file 10MB or larger, in which case it can not be imported. But my best attempt is always made. Dream Focus 09:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind, I've never seen any such tool - the closest an administrator could come is by doing full-text searches on individual revisions of deleted pages, which defeats the purpose of the search in the first place, or by downloading and searching through older database dumps, which requires a decidedly different skill set than most administrators have and may be rather iffy anyways depending on just how far-reaching bugzilla:23264 and related bugs are. Your best bet is probably to just keep an eye on what passes through the slaughterhouse, grabbing relevant pages as they come up, and then asking at DR for individual articles that look interesting. I'm quite excited to see you finally using your energy in a manner everyone could agree is constructive, by the way! Drop by and say hello some time on the YGO Wikia. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can also search deleted pages by prefix ("Show pages starting with:"), but that will not really help here. G.A.S^talk 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can...

Just for the record so far 3 of these have been deleted with List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow up to bat for being deleted. I know more of them are going to be deleted but out of the ones listed here which do editors feel are keep worthy?:

• List of fictional characters with telekinesis
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate cold and ice
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate water
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity
• List of fictional characters who can generate and manipulate radiation
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate light
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate time
• List of fictional characters who can alter probability
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate gravity
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound
• List of fictional characters who have super strength
• List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds
• List of fictional characters who can teleport
• List of fictional characters who can fly
• List of fictional characters who can poison
• List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction

Darkness

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, none of them. They all suffer from the same basic issues of being WP:OR cross-categorizations of trivial, and overly broad natures. Glad to see they are finally being dealt with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research. Many of the entries on those lists don't even have articles. I've been trying to keep an eye on these lists and add them to WP:DELSORT/ANIME as they come up and if the lists contain a number of anime and manga entries. —Farix (t | c) 02:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the last list is probably the most encylopedic as that it talks more about common troupes.陣内_Jinnai 02:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am for keeping the ones where they have an entry on the overarching subject (e.g. Telekinesis), but none of the others. These pages really aren't helping the project at their best, but the ones that are supplements to subjects that are themselves non-notable are REALLY not helping the project. --erachima talk 04:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As erachima says, while adding Teleportation to the subset that have main articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of all of them the one that I can see as a possible keeper is List of fictional characters who can fly, the list can be worked on to include notable examples and these do exist in comics (Example: Superman). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this and other discussions, I have nominated the majority of the set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Your input would be appreciated. --erachima talk 06:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ojamajo Doremi

I'm requesting help for Magical DoReMi. On an old topic on this talk page, some users and I agreed on renaming Ojamajo Doremi into Magical DoReMi as the latter is the best known internationally, but also agreed to keep the original Japanese names for the characters as Toei's English website uses them and 4Kids has only licensed the first series.

What I'd like to do is to gather together other articles and rename them accordingly. While the main article is still named Magical DoReMi, there are articles like List of Ojamajo Doremi characters, Ojamajo Doremi discography, and List of Ojamajo Doremi episodes. I've separated the episode guides into List of Magical DoReMi episodes (season 1), List of Magical DoReMi Sharp episodes, List of Magical DoReMi 3 episodes, and List of Magical DoReMi 4 episodes, but I need to link them to List of Ojamajo Doremi episodes. Thanks. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i would say change the titles and both names, since we go by official English name first, and common English name second (of course exceptions apply). I suggest you do not separate them yet though, it seems like undue weight to split the article and still maintain the main one. Maybe you could list the links to the episodes in the main article in the same way Sailor Moon does.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No we don't as that goes against policy and if the guideline says that it needs to be brought into line. We use offical names because 99% of the time they are the most commonly used name.陣内_Jinnai 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

well they use it for the characters. i saw it on the discussion once, they use it because it allows it not to add in the fan-translation over the actual name.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we do use WP:COMMONNAME for most article, but when it comes to anime and manga, we go by official first. Just to clear up that it's not all articles, just the anime/manga ones.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese translation request

If anyone is able to, I'd like to request a translation of an image here. The text around the large image in the center of the page. I'm wondering if any of it relates to Baccano!, which is the subject of the image. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 19:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing about Baccano!. It's a message talking about the 18th Dengeki Novel Prize, and is asking those interested to participate. The Baccano! image is there probably because Baccano! won the Gold Prize in the 9th round in 2002.--十八 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Too bad there's nothing new I can use. Ah well. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Highschool of the Dead problem

I guess it is because the series is popular, but recently, I've been having problems with random IPs changing the airdates for the episodes dispute the fact that the airdates are sourced to Anime Newtype Chanel. I've already placed a request for page protection but I would like more support on the article. I'm not sure if there is a coordinated effort offsite because these edits are coming in at a high rate and from different location. —Farix (t | c) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've set it up so it requires changes by new and unregistered users to be approved. So, if it's on your watchlist, you may see it pop up that there are pending changes which need approval (or disapproval). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

After some extensive research i found the first airdates from AT-X are sooner than Newtype Channel.

Ep 01 Ep 02 Ep 03 Ep 04 Ep 05 Ep 06 Ep 07 Ep 08 Ep 09

Very unsure that those schedules to be archive-able however AT-X schedule page can go back to January 2003. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Poking. Can i change the airdates using AT-X as reference? --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, the AT-X source seems much more plausible, as it doesn't give an airdate of tomorrow for an episode that aired ~20 hours ago. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moar non-manga as manga

The usual problem of somebody insisting something that is not manga be tagged with infoboxes and categories as such at D-Cyber. Reporting here rather than triggering WP:3RR. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok fixed. The next time you encounter such situation use talk page to point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/World comics work group and replace infobox for those found at Template:Infobox Asian comic series. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending mass-deletion spree?

I've just deprodded 15 or so articles prodded by TheFairix. Are you planning a mass TTN-style deletion spree? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perform some checks before throwing such accusations. --KrebMarkt 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

TheFarix did not prod them... please check your facts. In any case, it would help much more if you add an edit summary stating why you are contesting the prod. G.A.S^talk 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Malkinann (talk · contribs) was the one who prodded them. I reviewed them and deprodded a few that either need more research (i.e. they had European publications) or I could find enough reliable sources to establish notability. The rest I let stand. I would recommend that you do not deprod an article unless you have good reason to believe that there are enough reliable sources for the subject to pass either WP:BK or WP:NOTE. Otherwise, mass deprodding of good nominations using the assumption of bad faith is disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue just deprodding and and all articles prodded under the anime/manga project helm? That seems to be the bulk of your editing besides project tagging pages? Personally, I think at this point it is getting more than a little disruptive as you've been at this for months, if not longer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Collective laundry?

Thanks, to the Ip action it's even harder to keep track on everything

• GE – Good Ending Deprodded No rational
• Cage of Eden Deprodded No rational
• Ahiru no Sora Deprodded No rational
• Bee-be-beat it! Deprodded No rational
• 3.3.7 Byooshi!! Deprodded No rational
• Shibao Deprodded No rational
• Last Inning Deprodded No rational

Thanks for your participation to the laundry updated --KrebMarkt 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deprodded:

• A Town Where You Live, "Already been prodded once. Does not qualify for a second prod"
• Vampire Master Dark Crimson, "Published in several European languages, so these need to be checked out for reviews"

• Added links to French & German coverages in talk page. --KrebMarkt 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Xenon (manga), "With French and German releases, I believe that a search for reviews in those languages are due"
• Yubisaki Milk Tea, "rm prod per ref dumb on talk page"
• Saijō no Meii, replaced it with a redirect to the author's article. Give that it was only published in Japan and Taiwan we have yet to establish routine third-party coverage of manga in either of those countries, I though it better to redirect until someone find the necessary coverage. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• A Bad Boy Drinks Tea!, proposed a merge or redirect to author's article
• Tell Me A Lie, Redirected to Gosho Aoyama
• Steel Ball Run, proposed a merge or redirect to author's article
• 3rd Base 4th, Redirected to Gosho Aoyama

—Farix (t | c) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deprodded Zetman "French coverage found pass WP:BK #1" --KrebMarkt 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also redirected Senkōka Rubikura, Shugen Byakuryū Rubikura, and Acony (manga) to their respective authors' articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Tetsunagi Kooni to the list of redirects. —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Found the author of Area no Kishi, Tadashi Agi, and redirected the article there. —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those prods were all me. Thanks for deprodding the ones that can be improved. --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP has apparently go through and reversed some of the redirects stating that they must go through AfD first. I've restored the the redirects as the IPs edits are clearly disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Small update 10 more to go. --KrebMarkt 10:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest looking into Ahiru no Sora because it is a long running series that has consistently on the bestseller list. So there is a slim potential for coverage by reliable Japanese third-party sources for it. If the North American market wasn't so hostile to sports anime and manga, it probably would have been licensed by now. For the rest, I recommenced sending to AfD. All of them don't have any international publications beyond Taiwan to suggest potential coverage by reliable sources. Though it is probably best not to do them all at once, but in groups of three or less. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, especially on the group size. There's also one or two others that have a chance on the order of Ahiru no Sora's, but that can get sorted out in AfD, if not too many clog up the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Area no Kishi redirected

I sent Akkan Baby to AfD after deprod by our Ip guest because i was the one who tagged it for notability nine months ago. --KrebMarkt 20:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Umi no Misaki and Tetsunagi Kooni are now at AfD. I just hope that we will see the end of it someday. --KrebMarkt 09:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

2/3 Ai no Kyōkaisen is at AfD. --KrebMarkt 06:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Listed for deletion as of July 10, 2010:

• GE – Good Ending (AfD)
• Cage of Eden (AfD)
• 3.3.7 Byooshi!! (AfD)
• Shibao (AfD)

That leaves only three more, two are long running series and the other is a light novel. Even though A Town Where You Live is not on this list, I proposed a merge/redirect to the author's article if no reliable third-party sources are found. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've merged A Town Where You Live into the Suzuka articles, as it's a sequel. --Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Octave (manga)

Do people think this series passes WP:NBOOK? It's been reviewed by Erica Friedman of Yuricon fame, and I'm thinking about doing an article on it. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not with just one brief review. On top of that, Erica's "review" doesn't have any depth to it as she discussions more about why the manga will not be licensed than actually reviewing the work. So you will need at least a couple more reviews that are much more in-depth than this one. —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To be accurate Erica Friedman fellowed the Ja releases vol. 1 review vol. 2 review vol. 3 review vol. 4 review.

and the short article mentioned above is to fellow-up Six announcements we'd love to hear in San Diego this week & All are welcome. --KrebMarkt (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As M. Kreb notes, Friedman has reviewed it multiply in depth. However, that's only one reviewer -- I'd be a lot happier if even one other reliable source noticed it before concluding the series is notable. Either that or a licensing announcement -- that'd give news coverage and the strong likelihood of additional reviews, which point starting the article might be premature but supportable. (Yes, assuming reviews is a bit crystal-y, but it is indeed a very good series, of the sort that catches critical attention for the quality of characterization.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One more source would be great to have at least opinions from 2 different sources. Will it get licensed in English difficult to tell but for something yuri & in Kodansha's Afternoon the prospect is limited knowing that stuff like Vinland Saga or Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō have yet to make it in North America. Alternatively licensing in France is a definite possibility, Aoi Hana get licensed there even before the anime adaptation run. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RS check on Anime Academy

[9] - I'm asking because they appear as though they have some level of editorial oversight and have several interviews. However they've only been mentioned by one RS [10] and even then it was an offhand mention about the quality of their reviews.陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanator RS?

Few of our articles are using Japanator as sources. Its About page. I'm guessing its blogs and forum pages are out-of-bounds?

Interviewed by Anime3000: here Brad Rice is Editor-in-Chief of website, Gia Manry is ANN's associate editor and former editor-in-chief of Anime Vice

Interviewed at ANN: ANNcast 211.30.103.37 (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

See above comment re:Danica Davidson. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but it hasn't been taken there.

Does anyone want to discuss this? 27 articles are using Japanator.com as a RS; if it isn't an RS, that is a problem.

I think it's pretty clearly a RS. Publishers like Yen Press and Vertical are willing to talk on the record with Japanator, and it handily satisfies one of our usual rubrics, 'does ANN cite it a lot?' (A few dozen/hundred times, my rough Google search indicates.) --Gwern (contribs) 09:18 20 July 2010 (GMT)

It's been low on my plate to check this out. Yeah, poking about, I concur with your assessment. Looks RS to me, for those reasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week or more since this was first brought up; since it would just be recognizing the de facto situation, I'm going to add Japanator to our Online RS page tomorrow or so unless someone objects. --Gwern (contribs) 05:23 23 July 2010 (GMT)

I think it would be best to have it discussed at WP:RSN, to ensure neutral discussion and evaluation, and to avoid issues later as RS' that have been reviewed here have been questioned since because it was just a "project" consensus. Myself, I don't really think its RS just because its editor has appeared on some ANN podcasts and like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was ANN articles I was looking at. Anyway, I don't mind taking that risk. Project-outsiders haven't objected to it yet, nor have they objected to many (any?) of the dozens/hundreds of sites & sources on our RS page. YAGNI, as the programmers say. If there is no advantage to doing something in advance and you might not need to do it at all, why bother? --Gwern (contribs) 06:15 23 July 2010 (GMT)

Book request - Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation

The PR has noted the lack of page numbers and has requested them. If anyone has this book please help with this.陣内_Jinnai 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is partially available on Google Books, if that helps. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our Reference Library, Nihonjoe has a copy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Is it worth reporting an IP? The IP 159.182.1.4 is once again deprodding Anime/manga articles without any given reason and has had a history of making WP:Point Arguements. Research into the IP says it is registered to NCS Business Systems which has multi users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It may simply be a matter of deletion rational. The IP didn't deprod Refrain Blue which had a pretty extensive deletion rational. I've taken the rational used at Refrain Blue and started two AfDs for Billion Girl and Yandere Kanojo. I am currently checking into A Six Feet Girl for any reliable sources. However, I'm not holding out much hope for it either and will probably list it at AfD within the next few minutes. —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me also state that when the proposed deletion process was originally introduced, there were a number of editors who would go through Category:All articles proposed for deletion and were deprod articles because they disagreed with the whole process. But nothing was done about it despite several complaints at WP:ANI over the disruptive behavior. Eventually these editors gave up. So I seriously don't think reporting the IP will do any good. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove a prod for any reason or no reason, so there is nothing against policy about what this person is doing. You can ask that he gives an edit summary in the future, but even that isn't required. Calathan (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay ah well no use in going for it then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just go directly to AfD when handling with a manga if in doubt drop a line here before sending to AfD. PROD on manga is a waste of time. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

With this IP around, unfortunately Kreb is right. Unless it is a non-blatant hoax, the IP will just rip the PROD off. Unfortunately, because they are hiding behind an IP, even an RfC/U would be useless. Might be worth asking about at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to be sure, but it is hard to deal with behavioral issues with IPs that skirts policy, even if he is being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How much i want to trout that IP in a RFC/U :(

What's bothering me the most aren't the deppodring themselves but this IP not defending its view in those article AfDs. One must assume its convictions and defend them. This IP lacks gallantry. --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that this IP has now been blocked for his removal of prods. Though I can understand that people feel his actions are disruptive, my opinion is that the prod process allows for removal or prods in this way, and that it is therefore inappropriate to block someone for removing prod tags. I'm sorry to complain about the block of someone who people clearly find annoying, but I feel that enforcing a requirement to give a reason for removing a prod in effect modifies the proposed deletion process. I don't think it is appropriate to effectively modify the proposed deletion process in this way, and instead think that the appropriate solution to a situation like this is to start a discussion on modifiying the prod rules in order to require a reason be given when removing prod tags. I'm planning to discuss this with the blocking admin. Calathan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this IP removing PRODs what's is problematic is/was that it never replied on its talk page, never explained its depproding, never explained why those articles are relevant to Wikipedia in AfD. Its total refusal to interact with others on PRODs & AfDs subject can be viewed as rejection of collaborative works in a "I don't hear and i don't want to reply" style. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the block is fine as long as it is expressed as being for refusing to communicate with other users anywhere, and not expressed as being for removing prods without giving a reason. After talking with the blocking admin, it seems clear to me that he was blocking because the user refused to communicate with users anywhere, so I'm now ok with the block (though I'm hopeful someone will clarify to the user that it is for refusing to communicate and not just solely for removing prods without reason). I'm not against blocking this user, just against changing the way prod works without discussion. Calathan (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I also see that the user had been warned prior for mass removal of prods without reason and looking at the top of this page it seems the ip had been doing this for a month now. I agree though if this user had been blocked just for removing prods it would be another story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that the IP got blocked. However, I don't think it will do any good. As soon as the block expires, the IP will go back to the same disruptive behavior as always. —Farix (t | c) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Comic Con/New York Anime Festival

While updating the info for the New York Anime Festival I noticed this link: [11] saying that the New York Comic Con and the anime festival are going to co-locate this year, is this going to have any effect on anything? The Anime festival is listed as The comic con at animecons.com. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"While the two events will have separate guest rosters and programming schedules, they will share a common show floor and one ticket price. Each ticket will give an attendee access to both events." Here are details from ANN and the original press release. Arsonal (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge cleanups

Here is a list of article that received merge outcomes at AfD, however, no merge has yet taken place.

• Mobile Citizen (SD Gundam) – redirected to Superior Defender Gundam Force
• George Glenn
• Siegel Clyne
• Stand (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)
• RGC-80 GM Cannon

Well not counting the JoJo's merge, I do not know enough about the manga's to know where to merge the articles in their resting places. Is there someone who is fimilar with the anime/manga these have to be merged into? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one working on the Gundam Seed character merges, but stopped when those two non notable characters were not deleted so I gave up. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the characters are not getting their own articles, I dont know what title the Gundam SEED characters would go under though Secondary characters? Minor Characters? If those two characters are really that minor than maybe they should be relisted and deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would actually suggest just redirecting them to the list article. I would have when ahead and done it, but thought I give someone a chance to place a concise summary on the list. I'm not sure what to do with the RGC-80 GM Cannon as I don't know which UC series it originated from. But the RGC-83 GM Cannon II section has already been incorporated into List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory mobile weapons. But the list itself could use some major copyediting and cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Cartoon DataBase RS?

Just spotted this site being added to the External links of Ulysses 31 via a template. While only a handful are anime, this template is in use on over 100 articles. I'd never heard of this site until today and the corresponding article has been previously deleted for being non-notable. It does seem genuinely useful provided the information is correct, although there's no sources cited so there's no way to know if someone transcribed the credits or just copied it all off IMDb. Looking at the title that lead me there, they rather confusingly have Ulysses 31 listed twice under the English and Japanese titles and have Telemachus and Numinor spelt multiple different ways on the same page. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I consider that site nothing but spam that has snuck in through that darn template. It really should be deleted along with all links. It isn't even close to being big enough, like IMDB, to be given considered a good WP:EL. That its article got recreated is just sad (though not surprising seeing who made it). The site is certainly nowhere near meeting WP:RS as it is pretty much one guy's personal website[12] even though he refers to "we" (who we is is never said). Koch himself is not involved in the industry nor any one important, just someone who made a list of cartoons and kept growing his site from it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the website that will indicate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, the errors you've already spotted is probably a good indication that there is no fact-checking going on. I even noticed that there is a link at the bottom of the page where you can submit more information. As an external link, it does not stand out as a quality link that will be helpful to the reader. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh! My Goddess articles

I'm pretty sure this was said a while back but, I've been wanting to fix the Oh my Goddess articles and i noticed a few things. The main article has a section dedicated to the universe and another section that show's Norse Mythology references. I don't think these references are important even if they were sourced but I'm having trouble with the Universe section. Since i don't know the story of Oh My Goddess! as well as most, I'm afraid i might delete something important and no one will revert it.

The list of albums need a lot of work. For one, they need to be placed in the proper templates (track listing and nihongo), not a table. Another is add more information. I think the current format actually makes it harder to add more information. I think the best template would be this.

Example

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"English" (eigo (英語))	Artist	00:00
Total length:			00:00

I placed the first album in the article to show you what the tracklists could look like.

Aa! Megami-sama! - Music and Short Story Track Listing

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Coming Out of a Mirror" (Kagamiwo Nukete (鏡をぬけて))	Kappei Yamaguchi	4:02
2.	"Drama Part 1" (Dorama Ichibun (ドラマ・一分))		0:16
3.	"Our Campus Idol Is a Goddess" (Kyanpasu · Aidoruwa Megami-sama (キャンパス・アイドルは女神さま))	Seikou Nagaoka	4:39
4.	"Drama Part 2" (Dorama Nibun (ドラマ・二分))		3:24
5.	"The Dashing Motor Club" (Tsuppashiru Jidoushabu (突っ走る自動車部))		3:15
6.	"Drama Part 3" (Dorama Sanbun (ドラマ・三分))		0:49
7.	"Leave It to Me" (Ma~kasenasa~i!!! (ま~っかせなさ~いっっっ))	Naoko Matsui	3:52
8.	"Drama Part 4" (Dorama Yonbun (ドラマ・四分))		2:16
9.	"here Is the Lucky Star?" (Rakkii · Sutaa wa Dokoni? (ラッキー・スターはどこに?))	Seikou Nagaoka	4:26
10.	"Drama Part 5" (Dorama Gobun (ドラマ・五分))		1:31
11.	"Spirits!" (Seirei-tachiyo (精霊たちよ))	Seikou Nagaoka	3:11
12.	"Drama Part 6" (Dorama Rokubun (ドラマ・六分))		0:39
13.	"A Town with Goddess" (Megami-sama no Iru Machi (女神さまのいる町))	Seikou Nagaoka	5:09
14.	"Drama Part 7" (Dorama Nanabun (ドラマ・七分))		0:19
15.	"I Shall Be Here Forever" (Itsumademo Kokoni Imasu (いつまでも ここにいます))	Noriko Hidaka	3:59
16.	"Drama Part 8" (Dorama Hachibun (ドラマ・八分))		1:00
17.	"Ah! My Goddess" (Aa! Mai Goddonesu! (アー!マイ・ゴッドネス))	Noriko Hidaka, Naoko Matsui, Chisa Yokoyama	5:05
Total length:			47:52

Other than that, the only main problem is overly detailed biographies on the individual characters articles and remove some things that make the article in an in-universe style. Does anyone think they can help out?Bread Ninja (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We were suppose to be making an alternative tracklist for the readability issues. I don't know what happened with that.陣内_Jinnai 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a good setup in my opinion. But another problem is the list of oh my godess chapters. due to the first 20 books being westernized, i was thinking makin ga seperate section for them but without the chapters. Anyone think this is a good idea?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Having worked extensively on the chapter list myself, I'd welcome other views as well. I would like to point out a couple of things, though: generally, separate sections for different releases of the same series (most often tankouban vs. bunkoban/kanzenban/etc.) aren't wanted and FLC reviewers (AFAIK) will ask for them to be removed; and the first 20 volumes are being rereleased to exactly follow the Japanese tankouban release (it's up to about volume 16 by now) - when this is completed, I am considering simply only listing this release, and just noting the first releases in the lead. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

that's what i was thinking aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming references works

In case anyone has a spare $30-40, in October, Phaidon Press is releasing Manga Impact (Amazon), which seems to be a sort of encyclopedia/essay anthology of anime. I have high hopes for it since one of the main contributors also runs Italy's Locarno filmfest which has had a lot of important people attend it.

I'll probably ILL and scan it, but if someone beats me to it, that'd be swell. --Gwern (contribs) 05:11 24 July 2010 (GMT)

Looks interesting. It appears to have a large authorship base from Europe, which might get some titles the necessary international viewpoints. Arsonal (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to reference English VAs?

Well, maybe not impossible if I can find a source. Recently, I've been thinking about fixing up List of Eyeshield 21 characters (including some mergers and improving individual character articles when they can be saved). I also began a new draft on one of my subpages. The only thing really keeping me from going in-depth is that I'm trying to avoid spoilers until I can read the last few volumes, which VIZ will release in months to come. In any case, I came across a roadblock when one main character didn't have an English VA listed, and ANN and even IMDb have been of no help. In addition, I can't find a reliable source for the other VAs. Eyeshield 21 was given a dub, but it seems as though only a few episodes, maybe 5, were actually released (via Toonami Jetstream).

I managed to find an old episode and look at the credits, but it doesn't list roles, just a cast list (they also spell Patrick Seitz as Patrick Sietz!). Sentai releases DVD and Crunchyroll streams, but both are sub-only. It really seems like the dub has been lost...Does the Wikiproject or Wikipedia have a policy regarding this? Or, better yet, does anyone have a reliable source for these VAs? On ANN, most are sourced with Toonami Jetstream, but it redirects to a different site, and I doubt anyone has the original page archived. I've only been able to find an official source for Tony Oliver. Here's the ANN listing. The only other website source they use is this thing and I really don't know if it's official or not. Would this issue get in the way of getting it to featured list/good article status later on? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if there is no source at all, not even the episodes themselves, then the voices will have to be removed to make featured list, and the lead should note that only X eps were dubbed and released publicly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I figured that would be the case...If lacking them doesn't interfere with getting articles to FL or GA then I don't mind, though. I don't know how many episodes were released with the dub, but I do have a source that says Toonami Jetstream stopped releasing new episodes of Eyeshield 21, even before they went under (in addition, it seems like episodes were cut and merged together, but without official confirmation I rather keep away from numbers). Luckily, the English VAs aren't vital information, as the dub remains incompletely released, hasn't been legally available in years, and the VAs for some major characters are still unknown. I suppose I can just mention which actors were used in the lede, but note that they were not credited for specific roles, sans Tony Oliver who lists the role on his official site. The rest I can just cite with an episode. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd note in the lead about the dubbing and its being shortened, which should be all the explanation needed. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that :) Thank you for the help! Uh, but should I note Tony Oliver's role? I do have an official source, but I'm worried it would feel awkward with only one character having a listed VA. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is the only one, I'd probably just note in the lead while discussing the aborted dub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks again! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming of music articles

Question for the project: I am planning to create separate music articles for Angel Beats! and K-On!, but there seems to be a discrepancy between the way music articles are named. Is it better to name the article Music of XXX (e.g. Music of Final Fantasy I and II) or List of XXX albums (sometimes "soundtracks" or "character song singles" are substituted for "albums") (e.g. List of Popotan soundtracks)? It would be nice to set some guidelines to distinguish among them. Thanks for the input. Arsonal (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think we even need separate music articles for those series? All of the info that would go on separate music articles could easily be put in the main article, including creation/conception and sales/reception. The only thing that can't go in the main article are the track listings, but then those aren't important enough to warrant a whole new article either.--十八 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I've gathered of the series, Music of K-On! is probably a core enough subject to the franchise that it could eventually be split out as its own worthwhile article. As a general rule, however, we don't need to create separate lists for the show music, as it's a minor aspect best covered in the primary article. --erachima talk 04:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Split for soundtracks is situational. If handling the soundtracks in an exhaustive way within the main article unbalance it, split. By exhaustive i mean completeness in the enumeration of the releases and charts rankings NOT in the inclusions of track lists. Even without track lists Soundtracks are already expensive in KBs with a 1 or 2 references per sentence ratio.

Note: For K-On! there is consensus to split it and the ref dumps is at Talk:K-On!#List_of_K-On.21_albums. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Several of the Angel Beats! (Girls Dead Monster) music releases actually charted pretty high, so that fulfills the one of the criteria for notability. Arsonal (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notability, I'm talking about practicality. Does it make sense to create a separate Angel Beats! music article when any and all information could (and already is) available on the main article? I can live with a K-On! music article if you insist because it has a God awful number of albums and singles, but Angel Beats! only has six, definitely not a huge amount, even though several of them charted fairly high.--十八 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better for practicality purposes. A lot of our articles are held up in nominations for promotion because people complain that whole sections are just regurgitations of release dates. Introducing more meaningful prose that can serve as a proper summary will be beneficial, leaving the dates themselves to the daughter page(s). Arsonal (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Creating a content fork for such a purpose is not recommended, and often makes it harder to locate information; this is one of the reasons why this project has tried so hard over the past few years to work towards consolidating a bunch of articles into one or two. The general rule of thumb is, if it can easily be merged into a main article, then there's no reason to have it in a separate article. Angel Beats! is not going to get that much larger, aside from reception (indeed, I am already planning to make it more focused), so splitting off a bunch of release dates just for the sake of it is something I cannot agree with. It won't hurt the main article to keep it as it is. Like I said, there are only six music releases; not that many, and there will be no more to come in the foreseeable future. Unlike K-On! which has albums coming out all the time.--十八 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the separate article is only intended for release dates; I would also oppose such a move. The guideline you have linked to does not discourage summary style forking. If indeed Angel Beats! needs to be more focused, I don't see why a separate music page would not help it along that path. I would rather see the article be more focused on the artistic production rather than the incorporating too much stuff about its music. Arsonal (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the question of naming, we really don't have any standard. The current situation seems to be basically "what did I just see five minutes ago, or what makes the most sense to me at the moment". Although I do have to say, the overall situation seems to be slightly improved over the last time I looked through the category. As to a recommendation, I would say matching the style of our other list types - "List of X albums/soundtracks/singles/..." (exact terminology would depend on what the list is actually covering). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Dinoguy, although I have to agree with Juhachi that Angel Beats with 6 does not qualify for a stand-alone list. I don't see those compelling reasons for Angel Beats!.陣内_Jinnai 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The way i was doing was list of soundtracks, and singles would simply be listed as such "list of title soundtracks' but if it included the themesong aswell and legacy, it would be called 'Music of Title' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 July 2010

Since I forgot to mention it before, and didn't remember until now, I'd like to note that, for naming, my second choice is "Discography of X" - it seems to me that "discography" is a general-enough term to be correctly applied to albums, singles, OSTs, etc. and in that regard, actually comes quite close to "List of" insofar as my preference is concerned. I would say, in fact, that I would prefer "discography" when there is not enough content to justify further list-level disambiguation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a very plausible alternative, one I might use for K-On! I'm starting to get tired of lists being named "List of". Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discography of TITLE" however I think is the one that would work the least since at MOS:DISCOG, track listings are not to be included in discography articles, and I believe one of the reasons for creating a separate soundtrack/albums list is to include the track listsings. I've been partial to the "List of soundtracks/albums" naming, where "soundtracks" is used when only music albums are listed, and "albums" is used when both music and other albums, such as drama or radio CDs, are also included. "Music of TITLE" would work too, but only for the former case.

But let me reiterate (mainly speaking to Arsonal from here on), that I am now generally against creating such articles, because in my opinion they're much more trouble than they're worth, and unless one or two people are really dedicated to making the article nice, then it quickly dissolves into a huge mess, even more so if said series has a large, number, of releases. I know I'm going to be the one who has to clean up a "Music of K-On!" article, because I know if I don't, no one else will. That's what I've found out in soundtrack/album lists with a lot of releases: no one is dedicated enough to want to maintain such articles because there's too much busy work. If you don't believe me, take a look at List of Clannad soundtracks. I'll tell you this much, adding in those track listings with {{track list}} is a MAJOR PAIN, even for releases like singles with only a few songs. If you're not willing to dedicate yourself to the article, then don't even bother. It'll just turn out to be a huge mess, like 90% of the other soundtrack/album lists out there, many of which I myself started in my first year on Wikipedia, and still pretty much look as they did from 3 or more years ago.--十八 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your dedication, Juhachi, you could at least have some faith in me. I don't mean to belittle any of the work you've done, but I hope my recognized work can attest to the attention I place on my projects. I intend to see my work toward eventual completion. Arsonal (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to belittle any of your work either, but if this is the first time you've been involved with a music article from creation to FL-level quality, then I hope you have a lot of fun with it. I myself have done too many of them, and I don't have the desire to at least start more. One of the things that I've always hated are inexperienced editors who change song and album/single titles from standard formatting to ALL CAPS or all lowercased because that's how it was originally written on the album/single. I'm sure you won't mind reverting countless IPs who change "Go! Go! Maniac" to "GO! GO! MANIAC" on a weekly basis.--十八 07:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This actually is not, but I definitely see where you are coming from. Such changes are just part of the routine for me; I already deal with fan inexperience at the Chinese entertainment WikiProject. Arsonal (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame; "Discography" feels to me like the most "organic" title for such lists. I personally don't care for "Music" as much, not least because these lists could in theory include non-music releases, but I guess that's just me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Daily Yomiuri Shimbun art column

Hi,

just asking if anyone can keep tab with Yomiuri Shimbun art column as there are coverages for manga & anime series. The challenge comes that stuffs need to be archived through webcitation as articles are deleted after a while replaced by more recent ones.

Real life makes it difficult for me to add such watch into my editing scope & "portfolio". Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if a bot could do it...···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Attendance charts on convention articles

Over the past few of days, S13854 (talk · contribs) has been adding an attendance chart to the article on Tsubasacon.[13][14][15] I have repeatedly removed the chart and informed the editor that the chart is inappropriate for the article and that the past events table already gives the information, however the editor keeps adding the chart back in.[16] Since I am involved with the convention, I am familiar with all of the staffers nyms, but this isn't one that I recognized.

The question is, are attendance charge like this one useful for articles about conventions or are they just redundant information? —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The line graph seems to give the impression that the attendees from previous years stayed on and new ones came in, which is very unlikely to be the case. A bar chart would be a more appropriate graphical representation of the data, as it would not imply this assumption. I'd sooner see a photo of the convention than a bar chart. --Malkinann (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But it an attendance chart appropriate or not? And so long as the photo is not about cosplayers... —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe whether any attendance chart is appropriate or not might be considered an issue of taste, how to spice up a 'wall of text' and give further information to the reader (such as a whole-room photo of the main hall). I am a little concerned, however, that the attendance data does not seem to be referenced? --Malkinann (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that concerns me is that the picture only goes up to 2010 and will quickly date also yes the numbers remain unreferenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the attendance and guests are all referenced, unless someone has been removing references from AnimeCons.com. —Farix (t | c) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is to remove the picture then, the current numbers speak for themselves and are referenced. The new chart picture to me also is redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the data presented in the article. Some of the attendance numbers conflate paying attendance and staff, and some of the numbers given by animecons.com are only paid attendees. The 2009 estimate is at 900, although the article says 906. --Malkinann (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but the graph just takes those numbers that are currently there and have those references and just shows them in a diffrent way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that is an issue of taste. Some people understand better through visual aids than through reading, is it then redundant to have a bar graph showing the attendees? --Malkinann (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem if the bar chart is kept only if though it has the reliable references attached and is updated per year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it has any value at all. It is a randomly made graph of numbers from the table that do not appear to even have sources themselves. Further, it is excessively large and ripe with WP:OR as it makes no adjustments for factors and appears to just give the impression that the convention's numbers are rising. I don't particularly think the table is any better, though. Attendence should be part of sourced prose on the convention as a whole. And how, exactly, is this convention even notable? It seems to be entirely sourced by convention materials and local papers, and no visible significant coverage that is independent of the topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

the main purpose of the chart is for visual people like me. it take what is given and shows it in a different way. im going to try to resound to all the point people have stated.

1. for the part about my numbers not being referenced. the numbers on the cart come form the numbers in the article, which is referenced.

2. the part about my chart "will quickly date". has soon has the next figures come out of the attendance, i can or any one else with access to excel or any other program that can take raw data and plugs them into a graph or chart. them it becomes a matter of taking out the old one and putting the new one in.

3. the numbers referenced in the article is not correct or is just an estimate so there forth my chart in not correct. yes those number are not the exact number of people who attended to the con. figures involved with events can only be estimated. take the number of tickets sold, you have multiple day ones and single day ones. you have to factor that some people might by a single for day 1 and come back and buy one for day two and not but one for day 3, that person shows up has 2 tickets. the next verbal is you have people who buy tickets and never show up or who show up for there multiple day passe and leave shortly after and does not come back the next two days. factor in staff, press, and people who did not but a tick but found a way in and is use a friends pass who didn't want to come back the next to day. that's 2 people and one pass. when you factor those with the ticket sold you get a rough figure. its just meant to give you some idea of how many people attended.

4. now for the main point that Farix is asking. is an attendance chart appropriate or not. the chart its self is just taking what is already in the article and taking a different look at it. i don't see why it has become such a big problem. it takes a look at the number of people who attended and shows the changed over a period of time. every person will have there own views one what the chart presents, there nether right or wrong they are just what you get out of it.

i just want to say to Farix that just because you don't agree with the way some one wants to present data that is give in a different way you should not delete it. you cant always delete other peoples views. when you said "Since I am involved with the convention, I am familiar with all of the staffers nyms, but this isn't one that I recognized." would it had made any difference if i was a staff member, which would make it a bias article. just because someone is not a staff member dose not mean they have something to offer. the fans sometimes can show something or show something in a way that the staff didn't think to look at. to delete my graph because you say it is not appropriate for the article, you would have to delete the table. saying my graph (which it based off the table)is not appropriate by default makes the table not appropriate ether. - S13854 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not uber fan of graphic charts because i feel that it give way too much importance to attendance within the article. Then again if editors are too infatuated by "Attendance Numbers", i can only express my disagreement. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My question would be is AnimeCons.com. really a reliable site? I found out that the attendance numbers can be fully user edited by anyone. Here is a reference by the way on the convention from the source: [17] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:ANIME/RS

• AnimeCons.com - A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions.

The fact that AnimeCons checks the submissions is a key point. It's actually not easy to change information unless you have a press release, have an update on the con's website, or the owner personally knows that the submitter represents the convention. Now it seems that the attendance numbers are being called dubious because they "may" include staff and other non-paying attendees. The {{dubious}} template is for challenging information when they doesn't agree with the given source(s).

BTW, S13854 is restoring the chart again even though everyone else has said that it wasn't appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable assumption that 'attendees' of a con excludes staff members. I've used WP:REFGROUP to note the two sets of data which explicitly exclude con staff. --Malkinann (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very few attendance figures reported by anime conventions state whether staff were included in the count or not. This is true for Tsubasacon as any other convention. So making the assumption that staff were included is violating WP:NOR, even if the assumption was correct. Unless you have a reliable source stating that the staff was included in the count, you shouldn't be add notes stating as much. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that staff are exempt from paying attendance fees. I feel it is giving too much of a positive point of view to have the extra data about Tsubasacon 2008 and report the conflated number of paying attendees and staff without comment, when the 2005 and 2006 data seem to be reporting only the paying attendees. --Malkinann (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply report the numbers as they are given by a convention source or other reliable source. There is no need to "quantify" the numbers unless you are making a distention between a normal or badge count and a turnstile count at the same convention. But there is simply no way to tell if the staff were included in any of the counts or not. A turnstile count is were the attendance is based on the number of people who pass through a turnstile gate. Turnstile counts greatly inflating the attendance figure, but it is also the standard method for counting attendance for events except of anime conventions. —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing to report the numbers as they are given by a reliable source, including the distinction between paying attendees and staff at the con. To merely report the largest available figure without comment seems to me to be straying from a neutral point of view. --Malkinann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think a diction should be made unless the method used to obtain the count is radically different from previous coutns. And I do think these tables should give the total attendance reported by a convention or reliable source. And I don't think putting only the total attendance on the table is a neutral point of view. In fact, it is the most neutral way of reporting attendance for all conventions. —Farix (t | c) 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But they are given by a reliable source as being different. The total vs. paid gives twenty seven more people for the convention where both figures are reported. As we have no comparable 'total' data for the conventions where the sole count given is the paid attendees, it makes sense to note the limitations of the data. --Malkinann (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly?

Publishers Weekly has apparently reorganised their entire website. Could anyone please help me find any more of an official link for the following:

Kai-Ming Cha, (5/9/2006) "Embracing Youka Nitta" Publishers Weekly.

A cache I've been able to find is here: http://megalodon.jp/2008-0708-1529-57/www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6332853.html

Thanks for any help, or tips on how to effectively search the new PW. --Malkinann (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You might have to register to access the PW archives. I'm guessing a lot of things are now in the archives that require registration. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered the same problem with [18] (Fiction Book Reviews – Publishers Weekly, 3/23/2009). Question, though: if accessing the article requires registration, should we use it on Wikipedia unless absolutely necessary? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should still use them, as the Publishers Weekly website is generally just a convenience link, as it is a printed publication. It is only the older ones that need registration anyway, just like New York Times and the like do. Most of the updated links can be found by Googling the title (sometimes with "Publishers Weekly" and the date for stuff with generic names), as Google has already indexed the new site. For the one you need, WhiteArcticWolf, here ya go[19] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if it's not obvious, it appears that registration is free, so it shouldn't dent your checkbook. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Malkinann, Do you have access to Lexis Nexis or the like? If so you can probably find the original publication details there. If not, I'll take a look this evening for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have access to Lexis-Nexis. :/ Even if it's behind a paywall, we can still use it to build an article. Trouble is, the editors have to get a hold of it first. :P --Malkinann (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that one particular one, "Embracing Youka Nitta", appears to have been a web exclusive article...it didn't appear in the print one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And webcite seems to hate that cache. :( --Malkinann (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC on romanization of loanwords

There is currently an RFC taking place concerning the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language. Input from members of this WikiProject is requested to form a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato Issues

Should desslok.com be removed as sources for Star Blazers because such as [20][21] I don't think they are legit sources since they are fansites. Does anyone else have an opinion. I believe Arrivederci Yamato should be merged to Farewell to Space Battleship Yamato. If anyone can help with the other Yamato articles I would appreciate it. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone understand Japanese

I have created a new Hutch the Honeybee article does anyone understand Japanese since its official website [22] is only source I can find with any useful info about the movie and the franchise. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No I dont sorry but just my imput here would it be easier to just merge Hutch the Honeybee into The Adventures of Hutch the Honeybee? The film is not even made yet and I dont know if it is notable as a stand alone article. I have proposed a merger of all the hutch articles into The Adventures of Hutch the Honeybee as they are small. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New discussion at List of One Piece characters

There is an important discussion concerning the merging and deletion of article sections in this list due to the article itself being too long. As per Spindori's suggestion, I helped proposed a discussion for which minor characters and secondary characters are to be merged from their own sections into a different section or delete the section altogether. The discussion can be found at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Reducing article size. Any comments there are welcomed to help reach a consensus to this issue. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Genres

Currently there is only a list of anime genres, and it has been marked as needing urgent attention. Would it be appropriate to create an article that lists the genres of both anime and manga? It would make sense to me to elaborate on each of these and add links to lists within each genre if they exist (or create such lists if they don't). In addition, I recall that in the past "progressive anime" was also listed as a genre,but it is not there any longer. Any thoughts on whether or not this genre should be included again? There are certainly enough works to validate its presence, imho. (mentis (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

For information, it's about this list: List of anime genres --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That entire article is nothing but original research that was originally removed from Anime almost two years ago and recreated as this article six months later. I've redirected it Glossary of anime and manga which has most of the terms, even though they are still unsourced there as well. —Farix (t | c) 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

I think the article should include what the manga is rated (teen, older teen, all ages, etc.). Is this a good idea? 74.192.250.56 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible as each country has it's own age group for manga. Also in the U.S.A do companies rate all manga the same or some rate higher or lower age group based on content? There also can be dispute as some countries allow such and such content while others do not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Knowledgekid87. The closest to 'age ratings' we can give is the demographic (shonen, shojo, &c), which isn't really the same thing. Also, I rather doubt any two given licensing companies use the same rating system for manga, as to my knowledge there are no legal requirements to use a particular one in any country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrensath (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such an American-centric idea. For the same reason film articles do NOT include MPAA ratings, we should not include American ratings. They are arbitrary, meaningless, and ripe with systematic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it's systematic. That's much more efficient than systemic. (^_-) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:P~~~~~ I hate those look alike words ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know there were different ratings with different companies. I also had no idea they had an entirely different group in other countries. Sorry.74.192.250.56 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and i also didn't know that we didn't include MPAA rating. <Embarrasment/> 74.192.250.56 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes

There is an IP editor that keeps adding unsoruced episode titles to List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes. This IP has a long history of adding unsourced episode titles which frequently prove to be incorrect in the long run and has already been blocked for it once. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not much can be done with IPs as I have found out, if you really believe that this IP is being disruptive I would report it on the admin page. The IP user has been warned and blocked once so it is not like it is a first offense - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How to find Kanji for manga chapters?

I'm not sure how to find the Kanji for the manga chapters of Defense Devil. Could someone assist me in that? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Digimon articles

Before being blocked, 159.182.1.4 (talk) tagged a lot of Digimon related articles with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. At one time, anything tagged with {{WikiProject DIGI}} was also considered part of WP:ANIME, so there was no need to double tag the articles. But since then, WP:DIGI has largely become inactive and its template has been converted to using {{WPBannerMeta}} which has dropped all tracking by the WP:ANIME's quality assessment.

So here is the question. Do we want to absorb WP:DIGI as a work group, albeit an inactive one, of WP:ANIME? And if not, to what extent should the two project templates coexists with each other? —Farix (t | c) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. Not everything in the Digimon franchise is anime or manga related. It is possible to split up WikiProject Digimon between us and WikiProject Video games. It should be the same treatment with the Pokémon franchise. Arsonal (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I say absorb it. WP:Digi members are mostly limited to inactive users, users that are on and off, and users that cover a broad range of subjects. While the 2 latter areas aren't negative and many Wikipedians do the same, combined with the inactivity of several others, it means there isn't a strong focus on Digimon-related articles (sans some members that do put much of their effort into Digimon articles). In all, it means a merger wouldn't affect many because the project itself doesn't have a strong hold on articles, and the general Anime/Manga project could be a better resource for questions and concerns. As for what to do with the video games, I ultimately wouldn't mind giving them to the video games project, seeing as the games and Digital Pets were released before the anime series. The exception being if they spawned from an anime or manga series. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the video game people take WP:Digi. I'd always been under the impression that Digimon was like Yu-Gi-Oh - the anime and mangas were supporting the main money-makers of the card & video games - and not so much like Pokemon, where the anime and movies were significant in their own right. --Gwern (contribs) 17:46 25 July 2010 (GMT)

While it may have started off as a virtual pet toy like Tamagotchi, the majority of the franchise centers around the various anime incarnations and its spin-offs/merchandise. Almost all of the video game articles have been tagged with {{WPAnime}} I guess under the assumption that the games are based off of the anime series. I guess I need to do a catscan just to see how big of a correlation there is between the two project banners. —Farix (t | c) 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that Digimon as a whole should be absorbed as an inactive task force of Anime/Manga, their banner merged/redirected to ours, and someone with AWB can go clean up the talk pages. While they do have some video games and what not, so do many other anime series and I think video games project probably has those pages tagged individually (if not, we always can go through and fix that at the same time). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just completed some catscans to see just how much correlation there is. Of the 153 articles tagged with {{WikiProject DIGI}}, 142 articles are cross-tagged with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}, but only 27 articles are cross-tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}}. 25 articles are cross-tagged by all three projects. It's too early to tell how much of the cross-tagging is legitimate or not until someone goes through the 100 or so articles that the IP had tagged with our banner. —Farix (t | c) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that a merger of the Digimon WikiProject to our WikiProject per the above suggestions. So, we should start merging the Digimon template altogether and cleanup the talk pages. Any objections? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the necessary functionality for absorbing WP:DIGI to our banner sandbox; it can be viewed on the testcases pages. Note that the link and categories are redlinks since I went ahead and used the post-absorption titles instead of the current ones, and that I replicated all category behavior from the current WP:DIGI banner. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I rather lost heart in it all when the bulk of the articles were merged into lists of names. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Barring any objections, I'll begin merging the banners together. —Farix (t | c) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no objections here, go for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the digimon project should be absorbed into WP:Anime/Manga and I am in favor of the move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All pages (that I could find) have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon. I'll work on cleaning up some things and probably sending some of the project pages to MfD shortly. —Farix (t | c) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be a little late, but no objection from me either. The last few of us that were active with WP:DIGI got really active at the Digimon Wiki on Wikia when we moved most of the articles there. I myself haven't been active on either wikis for a few years. Keeping it around ask a task force/work group is a good idea, as they've just started up with another anime. I've also think the Digimon work group would make for a good unofficial bridge between Wikipedia and the Digimon Wiki, for cleaning up some of the less notable articles and such. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All that is left are the 1,000+ redirects that were tagged with {{WikiProject Digimon}}. I'm trying to figure out how to automate the process of removing the banner entirely if there are no previous discussions on the page and replace it with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} if there are. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment/Cleanup

I've been off Wiki for a few weeks and I found that an IP editor has added our banner to a number of digimon articles. So we now have like 100 unassessed articles that are mostly unreferenced individual character articles.

Anyway, long story short. A lot of these really need to be merged or deleted, I'd rather not assess them if they're going to be merged. But given the scale of this task, I was wondering if I could get some help with these. I don't know the status of Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon, but they don't seem to be in a hurry to take care of these articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 159.182.1.4 strikes again. Has any attempt been made to inform on it's talk page on how to fill out assessment scales? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the items on the list and #100 is listed as unassessed but here Talk:Yoshi Fujieda it appears that it is, how often is the list updated? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I assessed the bottom three before I realized what a task we had before us; I think the toolserver list only updates every day or so. The problem really isn't with them filling out assessments, it's that most the pages are unreferenced and about non-notable subjects. So really, I need help merging and cleaning up the main article/character list after the merges are done. Then I estimate we'll only have about a dozen or so legitimate articles to assess. I'll give a shout over at their project and see if anyone's around. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hutch the Honeybee Notability

Some more input would be helped reguarding the merger of the hutch the honeybee articles Talk:The Adventures of Hutch the Honeybee. I figure that stand alone articles that are this small: Hutch the Honeybee could be merged into one main article along with the others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Our Alliance: A Lasting Partnership

The US armed forces created Our Alliance - A Lasting Partnership, a comic that can be downloaded at http://www.usfj.mil/manga/ - Secondary sources are talking about it: CNN posted:

• Alt, Matt. "The U.S.-Japan strategic alliance... manga style." CNN. August 5, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Manga to promote US-Japan military alliance". BBC News. August 3, 2010.

—Farix (t | c) 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few ANN articles as well; Press Release, U.S. Armed Forces, Maritan Creators Make Joint Manga, U.S. Armed Forces, Maritan Creators' Joint Manga Posted WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Great - why isn't this manga on WP:MANGA/REQUEST yet? --Malkinann (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle's Syaoran and Sakura articles

An editor is asking to restore two character articles from Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle. The articles are Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle) and Sakura (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle). I've tried to discuss with the editor what is needed before either article can be restored, but the discussion can use some additional feedback. Discussion as been moved to Talk:List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters#Restore Syaoran's and Sakura's articles? —Farix (t | c) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To AnmaFinotera

Certainly an off project topic, yet i wanted to express my sincerest thank to AnmaFinotera for all her contributions in Anime/Manga field.

While we had our lot of disagreements over time, your dedication for better & more qualitative articles remains unquestionable. I will miss you, the level-headed Magical Bishōjo Editor. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly sad news. Your level of dedication will always be difficult to rival, AnmaFinotera. Back when I first joined Wikipedia, you really did help me out and introduce me to Wikipedia and this project's basic guidelines. I will always appreciate that. I'm sorry to see you go, and I will miss seeing you around. Good luck, wherever life takes you. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is seriously sad news indeed. :-( I am also really sorry to hear that you are leaving us after more than five years. Your dedication is invaluable to everyone involved here, including myself, Farix and Sesshomaru. I sincerely thank you for all the efforts you have done. With that, I wish you good luck, and I also bid you a final farewell from me and all of the members of the Anime WikiProject. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am very sad to hear that you have left Wikipedia, and will miss you as well. Your contributions made Wikipedia a better place. G.A.S^talk 04:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll fifth that. You may have told me you were thinking about doing this, but it makes it no less surprising, regardless... Wikipedia just won't seem as interesting without you around. =( 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You leaving is a big loss to the community and the encyclopedia. I curse those responsible. We rarely agreed on anything, but I found our disagreements enjoyable. Will miss you. Seriously. Goodraise 01:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seventh all of the above, he said, catching up as usual on old news. I very much enjoyed our collaborations. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt get a chance to know you very well but you were friendly to me, and you will be missed on the project here. Best of luck in life where ever it takes you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see you go, but good luck in your pursuits outside Wikipedia.陣内_Jinnai 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret that we never got along or could collaborate. --Gwern (contribs) 13:44 15 August 2010 (GMT)

Goodbye, AnmaFinotera. Thank you for your contributions and your work on copyright policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Name confusion of Shonen Jump

there is a bit of confusion on the "shonen Jump" articles. so i'll just suggest if we could remove the "shonen jump" redirect on Weekly Shonen Jump and rename Shonen Jump (magazine) to "Shonen Jump" by itself. what do you guys think?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note also that Shonen jump redirects to Weekly Shōnen Jump, while Shonen Jump redirects to the dab Shōnen Jump.

true, but Shonen Jump (magazine) isn't known with the "ō". until an actual title with that comes up we could name "Shōnen Jump" into "Shōnen Jump (disambiguation).Bread Ninja (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

With there being 3 terms using a similar name and none of them being clear as the dominant usage term the disambig page should be the link to all of them. As for dropping the magazine demotion, that should be fine.陣内_Jinnai 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor protesting Manga Updates user ratings being labeled as "unreliable"

After removing two edits from Strawberry 100% and Anedoki about user ratings form Manga Updates, which engages in the distribution of manga scanlations without the author's consent, the editor who included the ratings is protesting Manga Updates being called an unreliable source.[1] They claim that they don't find reviews by "official" reviewers, such as ANN and Mania.com, to be "bias and unreliable," but because they find Manga Update's user generated reviews and ratings more useful to them, the website is therefore "reliable".

I won't be able to participate in the discussion for the next couple of days as I heading to a family reunion and then going to the State Fair. So if there is a response, I'd like another editor to fill in for me. —Farix (t | c) 12:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In response, the website's reviews do not comply with the reliable sources guidelines and the verifiability policy and therefore is not notable to include in our articles. Manga scanlations without the author's consent are also illegal. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NNC. What you should have linked to is WP:DUE. Goodraise 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I apologize for my mistake in my previous comment. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I find their accusation of official reviews being biased outright laughable - there is no such thing as an unbiased review; it's a logical absurdity. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is such a thing as 'skewing far from the mean of reviews' and other such definitions. Is anyone going to argue that reviews in Nintendo Power have much if any correlation with what everyone else actually thinks of the games? Or editorials in Pravda of the real world? --Gwern (contribs) 06:41 17 August 2010 (GMT)

I made no comment in regards to how biased any review might be, instead merely stating that reviews are inherently biased. It should be glaringly obvious that some reviews can be (much, much) more biased than others. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox chronology

I'm currently having a dispute on Angel Beats! on the ordering of the infoboxes. Per what is recommended at Template:Infobox animanga#Usage, I attempted to make the argument that the infoboxes should be listed in a chronological ordering per their release. Angel Beats! is an original anime project, but a series of short stories and a manga were serialized before the anime aired (though the production of the anime itself pre-dates the short stories and manga by about 2 years). Because of this the light novel and manga boxes were above the anime box, but User:Gariya seems adamant that the primary work (anime) should be listed first in case readers are confused as to what is the primary work, despite the lead and rest of the article making it very clear that it was an anime project first. In a related issue, the same user switched the ordering of the infoboxes in Heroman, despite the anime being based on the manga.

I would like to get the project's opinion on this issue, even though it only affects a small number of articles. Should the primary work always be listed first in the infobox, or should it be kept in a chronological listing per what is recommended for consistency.--十八 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Multi-media franchises, such as Angel Beats! and Sora Kake Girl tend to be perceived by the uninitiated as original anime series instead of as multi-media franchises. Beyond tweaking the language of the lead paragraph, I don't think there is anyway we can actually fix that perception. But putting the anime series component first, even if it doesn't come first in the franchises, only promotes that false perception instead of correcting it. —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Heroman is an original anime project. It was announced in 2008 in the Japanese anime Magazine NewType as a collaboration project between Stan Lee and Studio Bones. The manga was made to promote and to introduce, and also to create a hype for Heroman. It's just like how a movie OST is released before the movie release. In the manga, you can see that the story writer is credited as "BONES". That alone is enough proof that Heroman is an original anime project by Bones and Stan Lee. You not knowing the fact that the Heroman manga was based on the anime despite being released before the anime only to promote the anime itself is a proof that the article must be changed to avoid confusion. And also, the SoRaNoWoTo page on wikipedia still maintains the anime infobox above the manga despite the manga was released a couple days before the anime aired. Well of course, since SoRaNoWoTo is an anime original project for Anime no Chikara time-slot that shows only original anime. And that is a correct order of the infobox. Also, I've seen a lot of people that are still mistaking Angel Beats as a light-novel turned into anime. That's also proof that the infobox must be changed to have the primary project at the top, because even by the chronology of the idea and the planning of the project itself, the anime comes first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariya (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

These are not "anime original projects". An anime original project would have an anime with no other media tie-in until much later. Instead, these are mulit-media projects published in several forms (light novel, manga, anime, audio drama, etc.) As such, the most natural way to organize their infobox components is sort them based on their order of release. Declaring any portion of a mulit-media project as "primary" is flat-out origional research unless you have a reliable source for it. —Farix (t | c) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it is not feasible to order the components according to when production started, instead of when they were actually released - for the vast majority of series, there is simply no information available on when production was started, which means *any* ordering would be original research. Other orderings have been considered as well, but ultimately release date is the most easily verifiable and least-susceptible-to-bias/original-research method. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor switching hentai/erotic genres to ecchi.

Ozerovocka (talk · contribs) has been switching a lot of genres for anime and manga series from hentai/erotic to "ecchi" without providing any reliable sources to back up the change. He/she has already attempted to do this one before using IPs[1][2][3] and has been warned several times. —Farix (t | c) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that Anime News Network's encyclopedia, MyAnimeList, and AniDB all list I Dream of Mimi as non-hentai. Though none of those are reliable sources, there seems to be general agreement among anime databases of that sort that it isn't hentai. It was released by a hentai company, but having seen it, I can say that it is less explicit that some other titles that aren't considered hentai. I don't know if there is any actual reliable source that says it isn't hentai, but listing it as hentai definitely could be contentious. Also, the manga was published in Young Animal, which I don't think is a hentai magazine. Calathan (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If Young Animal ran KimiKiss and Amagami manga, I don't think they are hentai magazines. From what I understand, those two games and subsequent adaptations do not have hentai content. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It has sex in it, its animated, and its Japanese, so its hentai. Of course that'd be considered original research by some, who would point out that you can only quote reliable sources, and Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. I'd say keep it listed as hentai. Common sense always outweighs reliable sources. Also, is it the anime which they are reviewing? Was the manga that much different? In the Anime Mimi and the other robot girls have to get "liquid memory" from his semen regularly. If the article is about the anime, which came first, then it should classify itself as hentai. Or even if just part of the series was hentai, put that tag on it. Dream Focus 03:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The manga came first, not the anime. Anyway, looking at Chris Beveridge's review from Mania.com (there are several reviews of it on Mania.com), he refers to it as "soft hentai", but then in the next sentance says it is "essentially light ecchi" [23]. I would say that could support either position. Also, the anime apparently had an age rating of "16+" for its first U.S. release and "17+" for a later release, while hentai would normally be labeled as "18+" or something equivalent. But then again, it was created by an anime studio that normally creates hentai and released by a U.S. company that normally released hentai. So it seems to me that calling it hentai or ecchi could both be justified. Regardless, I don't think the fact that it has sex would in any way make it considered hentai, as there are lots of anime with explicit sex scenes that aren't considered hentai. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Am I understanding you right, that common sense should be given more weight in our articles than verifiable sources? If that is so, then whose common sense are you referring to? Your own perhaps? What if another editor's common sense disagrees? Maybe I should go around a few articles and change whatever is inconsistent with my common sense. Heck, why use sources in the first place, when almighty common sense of us genius Wikipedians is so much better? Let's create a bot to remove all those pesky and completely superfluous references. They just make the text less readable and slow down page loading time. The only thing I expect to find in an encyclopedia article are the opinions of a bunch of anonymous website users. That's what "common sense" means in this case. It's a euphemism for "in my opinion". If the only sources that can be found for a piece of information can not be considered reliable, then the solution is not to replace the bad outside opinion with our own, it's removing the information altogether. Goodraise 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE (My linking to it does not imply I am supportive or opposed to it.) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is one thing I've learned form dealing with people, especially young people, it's that there's nothing common about "common sense". When content is being disputed, it is "common sense" to find reliable sources to back up the content in dispute on way or another. However, your saying that we shouldn't use reliable sources and instead applying our own interpretations, which isn't very common at all. This is one of the reasons we have such problems with people labeling various anime or manga series as "ecchi". Most of the time, you are not going to find a reliable source for that label, however people will continue to use their own interprtations when applying that lable. Heck, a while ago, random IPs were listing Highschool of the Dead as an ecchi series even though there was nothing erotic or sexy about its "fanservice". —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm 35 years old, not young. Age doesn't matter. Common sense as far as hentai is defined is Japanese animation with sex in it, when used by English speaking people. Common sense as if anyone who saw it says its Japanese, its animated, and its got sex in it, then its hentai. The fact that some reviewers didn't label it as hentai, or even said it wasn't, doesn't change reality. Dream Focus 00:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is "hentai" accepted as a genre? I thought that pornographic/erotica/erotic/raunchy was to be used in place of hentai or ecchi, particularly because hentai is a slang that is not clearly defined and ecchi is just another way of saying that the content uses erotic material. What's the consensus on this? Also, I don't think that the definition of "hentai" as any Japanese animation/manga that has sex on it is appropriate. Violence Jack and Golgo 13, for example, both have explicit graphic sex depicted in the manga and anime, but they aren't considered "hentai" or "ecchi" by common sense, at least not as far as I know. Jfgslo (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help sourcing Weekly Shōnen Sunday

Could someone tell me how to source issue number 5 1996 of the Weekly Shōnen Sunday magazine? Also it would be nice if I was given the date it was published and ISBN if possible. Thanks! DragonZero (talk · contribs) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it have a volume number? If not, I guess we use the year as the volume number. In that case, it will be: {{cite magazine | first = First | last = Last | title = Title | magazine = Weekly Shōnen Sunday | volume = 1996 | number = 5 | pages = 1–10 | publisher = Shogakukan | language = Japanese}} which produces Last, First. "Title". Weekly Shōnen Sunday (in Japanese). Vol. 1996, no. 5. Shogakukan. pp. 1–10. —Farix (t | c) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure which volume number it is but its the first issue where Case Closed was first introduced. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are anime and manga Japanese pop art?

> How does Category:Japanese pop art have anything to do with anime or Manga?
> Japanese pop art ... is horribly non-obvious, counterintuitive, and inapplicable
And my favorite:
> 'Pop Art' instead of 'Anime and Manga' just reeks of trolling.

Trolling? Are you serious? You guys really hate that phrase, don't you? :) It seemed obvious to me based on the parent categories: Two parents of Category:Anime are "Japanese pop culture" and "Arts in Japan", and two parents of Category:Manga are "Japanese art" and "Japanese pop culture", so I thought "Japanese pop art" would be a good description for both of them. Are anime and manga not art? Are they not popular? Are they not Japanese, at least traditionally? What's wrong with "Japanese pop art" as a conceptual description, even if the phrase isn't a well-established convention? —Codrdan (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that while all anime and manga may be Japanese pop art (and I think that could be argued against somewhat successfully), not all Japanese pop art is anime and manga - it would also include novels, video games, etc. (just how much, I think, comes down to the definition of "pop art" used and what exactly makes certain pop art "Japanese" - this may seem obvious, but you'd be surprised at some of the edge cases we've had disputes over).

"Japanese pop art" may be a good, higher-level category in general, but it makes little sense as the direct parent of Category:Anime and Category:Manga.

On a somewhat related note, exactly what is the difference between Category:Japanese art and Category:Arts in Japan? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It could be argued that most anime is Japanese pop art, but not all, unless all films are somehow pop art, even if they are indie ones coming from arthouses.
• Now arguing that it is "Japanese art" is a dffierent thing altogether as all anime and manga is a subcategory of that.陣内_Jinnai 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Anime-and-manga pages are miscategorized

All of the pages involving both anime and manga are miscategorized under Category:Anime and/or Category:Manga. Category:Anime should be about anime only, not manga, and Category:Manga should be about manga only, not anime, so anything involving both anime and manga should be in a higher-level parent category. I created Category:Japanese pop art and moved Category:Anime, Category:Manga, and all anime-and-manga content into it, but User:TheFarix undid all of those changes. If you don't understand why the current categories are incorrect, please read WP:CAT or ask someone on the WP:CAT talk page. —Codrdan (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

There is nothing "mis-categorized" about them. There are several categories that have have both Category:Anime and Category:Manga as parents because they deal with both media. There is no need to create a new category tree for such cases as it is complex, and to a degree, overcategorization. —Farix (t | c) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

>several categories that have have both Category:Anime and Category:Manga as parents because they deal with both media
You're doing it backwards. Parent categories are supposed to be supersets of their child categories, not just random associations. Neither Category:Anime nor Category:Manga can be a parent of anything involving both anime and manga, because if the child deals with both media, then the parent has to deal with both media too. That has nothing to do with anime and manga in particular; it's just the way categories work. As I said on the other page, if you can't understand that, then you really need to stay away from the category system and let other people deal with it. —Codrdan (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Neither Category:Anime nor Category:Manga can be a parent of anything involving both anime and manga." Who says that they can't? I see nothing in WP:CAT that states subcategories can only have one parent category. If there is a subcategory involves both anime and manga, then there is no reason why the subcategory shouldn't have both Category:Anime nor Category:Manga as parents. "it's just the way categories work." Again, there is no policy or guideline dictating that a category can only have one parent. In fact, WP:CAT directly states, "it is possible for a category to be a subcategory of more than one parent."

One of the reasons we have categories like Category:Anime and manga by genre is to prevent overcategorization. At one time, there were separate sets of categories for anime and manga. But because the two sets had a huge overlap, the two sets were combined to cut down on the clutter. —Farix (t | c) 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

After looking at WP:CAT, I think Codrdan is right about this. My understanding is that any article should belong not only to the categories it is in, but also to all those categories parent categories, the parents' parents, etc. Currently, most manga articles belong to Category:Anime even if that manga doesn't have a related anime, and most anime articles belong to Category:Manga, even if that anime doesn't have a related manga. For example, a manga could be in Category:Drama anime and manga, which is in Category:Anime and manga by genre, which is in Category:Anime (as well as Category:Manga). This means the manga is in Category:Anime, even though it is a manga and not an anime. One solution to this might be to merge Category:Anime and Category:Manga into a single category called Category:Anime and manga, though I'm not sure if that would cause any problems (I'm strongly opposed to the name Category:Japanese pop art, as "anime and manga" is used everywhere else). Calathan (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also strongly opposed to Category:Japanese pop art. If a combined category must be had, then it should be Category:Anime and manga, with parent categories Category:Anime and Category:Manga. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How does Category:Japanese pop art have anything to do with anime or Manga? I am also opposed to this idea. Im undecided on what to do about the Category issue though as both sides make good points so I wil lwait and see where the general consensus goes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If we made a Category:Anime and manga but gave it parent categories of Category:Anime and Category:Manga, then that would do nothing to fix the problem. All the manga articles would still chain up to Category:Anime, and all the anime articles would still chain up to Category:Manga. Calathan (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying that argument at all. We have a number of American and other international companies in Category:Anime companies, which is a decedent of Category:Anime. However, Category:Anime is a decedent of several Japanese categories and even Category:Anime companies is a child of Category:Entertainment companies of Japan and Category:Media companies of Japan. The Non-Japanese anime companies wouldn't technically "belong" under these ancestor categories even if these companies would belong in Category:Anime companies and Category:Anime by extension. So avoiding this is completely impossible, completely arbitrary and should not be the overriding factor for category organization. —Farix (t | c) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are probably many examples of cases where articles end up in categories they don't fit in through subcategories. Just because it is a widespread problem doesn't mean we should fail to fix an individual case. However, if merging Category:Anime and Category:Manga into a single category would make the categories more confusing or harder to navigate, then I could see a WP:IAR arguement to leave things as they are now. The purpose of putting things into categories is to group articles together and to aid in navigating between them, and if following the guidelines as written hinders that, then it seems like the exact sort of situation for which WP:IAR exists. On the other hand, if merging Category:Anime and Category:Manga wouldn't cause any problems, then I think that is the best solution. Calathan (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "merge"? There's no need to delete Category:Anime and Category:Manga and mix all their content into one category. That would be awful! There should be an overall Category:Anime and manga to hold all content related to anime and/or manga, and Category:Anime, Category:Manga, and all top-level "Anime and manga" pages should be its children. —Codrdan (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

>Non-Japanese anime companies wouldn't technically "belong" under [Japanese] categories

You're right, Category:Anime companies is miscategorized. It shouldn't be in Category:Entertainment companies of Japan or Category:Media companies of Japan, because "of Japan" means the company is located or headquartered in Japan, and that doesn't apply to all anime companies. Avoiding miscategorization is completely possible; you just have to fix the broken categories:) —Codrdan (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry....but 'Pop Art' instead of 'Anime and Manga' just reeks of trolling. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the scope of parent categories should always completely cover the scope of child categories, but truth be told, the fact that our top-level category is two categories has bothered me for a long time. I would therefore not be opposed to creating a new Category:Anime and manga which contains Category:Anime and Category:Manga, as well as the other top-level categories and any core articles or lists which directly concern both anime and manga but don't fit under any subcategories. I would like to hear how you came up with Category:Japanese pop art, though, Codrdan; that category name is horribly non-obvious, counterintuitive, and inapplicable as the parent category here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record im not opposed to Category:Anime and manga as well, I see alot of people favoring that outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous categories

Just for a quick link and for those who do not know a more behind the scenes discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:Eponymous categories as a current deletion proposal involves this project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, it seems to me that the main issue there is very different than the main issue here, even though this discussion somehow emerged from that one. In that discussion, it looks like the initial issue was that someone wanted to delete categories that categorize other categories. Placing a category in another category would suggest that the articles in the subcategory would fit in the parent category, but in those cases the parent category is not meant to be categorizing articles but categorizing categories. However, the issue here deals only with categories that categorize articles, and not with categories that categorize other categories. So even though this discussion started as part of that deletion discussion, I think ultimately the outcome of that discussion shouldn't affect what we decide to do here. Calathan (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed these comments were moved and then removed entirely. I didn't mean to suggest that linking to the other discussion was out of place, only that the final outcome of the deletion discussion shouldn't affect the final outcome of this discussion. I think we should keep a link to that discussion as this discussion started there. Calathan (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say that I know the outcome of that deletion wouldnt effect this discussion but it does draw more feedback from others linking the two as well as showing where this discussion came out of. Personally I feel the outcome for that will be "No consensus". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

>I didn't mean to suggest that linking to the other discussion was out of place

But it is out of place. There's no meaningful connection between that discussion and this one. —Codrdan (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The linking is in place as it contunes a discussion between you and Farix reguarding this discussion. Over at the other discussion Alan Liefting proposed the name Category:Anime_and_manga_series rather than Categories named after anime and manga series and hence the discussion began to take form there. You dont have a flower without a stem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More discussion

I'm probably missing something obvioius, but what is the reason for having the lower levels of the category tree combined into "anime and manga" categories, rather than keeping two parallel sets of categories—one for anime and one for manga—and placing articles relevant to both topics into both category trees? I would guess the main issue would be the overhead involved in maintaining the "duplicate" categories; is that the case, or is there some more fundamental problem with that approach? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, the main problem was the massive amount of overlap - while it doesn't always hold true, a general rule of anime and manga is that adaptations generally fall under the same genres and themes as the original works, and quite often, the same demographics as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly true (although I'm not sure if it's a condition necessarily specific to the anime and manga pairing, since the same tends to hold true if light novels, games, and other adaptations are involved). As far as I can see, there are three main options here:

1. Retain the current structure, with Category:Anime and Category:Manga separate, and "anime and manga" used in sub-categories. This is, indeed, in contravention of WP:CAT to some degree; but that page is a guideline, and I think reasonable exceptions can be made.
2. Merge Category:Anime and Category:Manga into Category:Anime and manga (and similarly for any other "distinct" anime and manga categories) and have the entire tree use "anime and manga" throughout. This would resolve the overlap problem, as well as bringing the tree into compliance with WP:CAT.
3. Split the "anime and manga" categories into duplicate trees of distinct categories for anime and manga. This would also be compliant with WP:CAT; but, because of the heavy overlap, it would require that two virtually identical category trees be maintained.

If compliance with WP:CAT is a significant factor, then I would suggest going with the second option and merging everything into the "anime and manga" form; this would involve a certain amount of effort, but would probably result in the neatest category tree. Otherwise, I think an argument could be made to retain the current system, which is reasonably intuitive for the reader even if not entirely compliant with categorization guidelines. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the first option. In reality, each manga and anime should have its own article and categories, but the nature of the industry in Japan makes them overlap naturally. This rarely happens with Western productions. For example, Superman, besides the comics, has had several animated and live-action adaptations, but there is no overlapping problem because each media iteration has its own entry in Wikipedia. The same can't be said from One Piece, where a single article compiles most of the information about the different media (manga, anime, light novels, etc.) If we had the information, most manga and anime would have their own article separately and there wouldn't be category overlapping problems. As Kirill commented, the current system may be leaving out light novels, video games and other similar media that also tends to overlap with manga and anime (like Queen's Blade.) But for the sake of avoiding complexity and making categories useful for readers to find and navigate within anime and manga articles, which is the the purpose of categorization, I think that the current system should be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Codrdan has once again reorganized the anime and manga categories dispute not achieving a consensus to do so. I would ask him to undo this and restore the original organization. —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Should a rough consensus be polled then? I just see talk about it here and 3 proposals that were split on, not a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Please comment (and/or Support or Oppose) on the following proposals:

• Keep Category:Anime and Category:Manga completely separate, with all "anime and manga" categories as sub-categories of Category:Anime and/or Category:Manga. This is, indeed, in contravention of WP:CAT to some degree; but that page is a guideline, and I think reasonable exceptions can be made.
  • Support As I mentioned before the current categories are useful for readers to find and navigate within anime and manga articles, which is one of the purposes of categorization. Jfgslo (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers naturally expect content about anime and manga to be in a category called "anime and manga". There's nothing helpful about forcing them to choose between Category:Anime and Category:Manga in order to find it, since neither category logically should contain content of both types. —Codrdan (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Keeping them diffrent is best and helps in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Jfgslo's reasoning. If something is both, then categorize as both, but a fair number (roughly half, by my guess) are not and should only be one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not what this option does. It categorizes everything as only one or the other, including categories that are obviously both. —Codrdan (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • By "cagtegorize as both" I meant not "categorize with a category for both" but "categorize with both categories" -- which is current practice. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh. I guess that might make sense for individual articles. —Codrdan (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Organize Category:Anime, Category:Manga, and all content involving both anime and manga into Category:Anime and manga, while keeping anime-only content in Category:Anime and manga-only content in Category:Manga. This is the standard practice throughout Wikipedia.
  • Would doing this effectively require three having parallel category trees (e.g. "X anime and manga", with sub-categories "X anime" and "X manga") throughout the entire chain? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No, not at all. As long as Category:X anime and manga isn't too big, there's no need to overcategorize X content into two or three categories. —Codrdan (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This option captures the general idea of my ramblings above, and would probably require the least work needed to bring the categories in line with WP:CAT. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Per above, if all else fails a standard practice is always a good fallback opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is the only option that puts all content where readers naturally expect it to be. Anime-only content is in Category:Anime, manga-only content is in Category:Manga, and categories related to both anime and manga are in Category:Anime and manga. —Codrdan (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge Category:Anime and Category:Manga into Category:Anime and manga (and similarly for any other "distinct" anime and manga categories) and have the entire tree use "anime and manga" throughout. This would resolve the overlap problem, as well as bringing the tree into compliance with WP:CAT.
  • Oppose I'm sure this isn't the only project that has to overlap categories so I don't see a real reason to follow strictly that guideline. Why create and extra category when the current categories aren't the same and are dependent of different parent categories which have little to do which each other (Animation, Literature, Television)? That would be even worse than retaining the current structure. And besides, that leaves out all other Japanese media that is closely related to manga and anime (light novels, novels, video games.) Jfgslo (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree Merging anime-only content with manga-only content is pointless undercategorization. —Codrdan (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Seems not needed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Split the "anime and manga" categories into duplicate trees of distinct categories for anime and manga. This would also be compliant with WP:CAT; but, because of the heavy overlap, it would require that two virtually identical category trees be maintained.
  • Oppose Heavy overlapping is not what we need here and two trees is just more hard to manage - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be the ideal solution if each manga, anime, light novel and related media had its own article, like most of Western media has. But, as the situation is right now, heavy overlapping would occur and that would make categories in an article useless for readers and difficult to navigate. Jfgslo (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Exemplification of the options

There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding what is the proposal of Codrdan. I will attempt to exemplify it so that the changes in categories get as clear as possible so that a true consensus could be reached. Codrdan, feel free to comment as you see fit.

• Let's take the example of Doraemon. One of the categories in which it falls is Category:Science fiction anime and manga since the series started as a manga and has several anime adaptations. With the changes made by Codrdan, the Category:Science fiction anime and manga is still a subcategory of Category:Anime and manga by genre but now this subcategory is not directly related to either Category:Anime or Category:Manga, since it is now a subcategory of the recently created Category:Anime and manga. This is the second option Organize. Whether or not combined articles such as Doreamon would be part of Category:Anime and Category:Manga is beyond the scope of this discussion. The options pertain only to Category:Anime, Category:Manga, and the "anime and manga" categories. The genre science fiction is now free from Category:Anime and Category:Manga and is now dependent of Category:Anime and manga. This way, the issue with WP:CAT is solved.

Addendum Codrdan just clarified something. With this option Category:Anime or Category:Manga are subordinated to the larger category called Category:Anime and manga. That means that Category:Anime and manga by genre, Category:Anime and Category:Manga are on the same level. Combined articles like Doraemon would be on Category:Anime and manga by genre, while a manga-only article, like Eden: It's an Endless World!, would belong to Category:Manga plus Category:Cyberpunk anime and manga, which is the "son" of Category:Science fiction anime and manga and "grandson" of Category:Anime and manga by genre. Category:Manga would become a subset of the super-category Category:Anime and manga. This implies that:

• An anime and manga article would be part of the tree Category:Anime and manga -> Category:Anime and manga by genre. Don't worry about whether or not individual articles are in Category:Anime and Category:Manga. That's a separate discussion.
• A manga-only article would belong to both Category:Manga and Category:Anime and manga by genre.
• An anime-only article would belong to both Category:Anime and Category:Anime and manga by genre.

Is this correct, Codrdan? Jfgslo (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your descriptions above, so it's correct now. As I said to Kirill, the Wikipedia category system is just a natural way of organizing content so the names of categories accurately reflect their content. It has nothing to do with forcing overcategorization on people. That would suck. :) "Anime and manga" really means "Anime and/or manga". It's intended to be inclusive of anything that's related to the overall style of visual art that includes both anime and manga. —Codrdan (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• With the first option the category Category:Anime and manga by genre would be the "son" of both Category:Anime and Category:Manga instead of a single category, which is something that goes against the ideas suggested by WP:CAT. This is the first option, Keep, since that was the way the categories were working until Codrdan changed them abruptly without a clear consensus.

• The third option, Merge, was never the idea that Codrdan and it seems to me that it was a confusion of what he originally proposed. With this option, Instead of having Category:Anime and Category:Manga, we would only have Category:Anime and manga, which solves the problem with WP:CAT but creates a whole lot of other problems.

• The fourth option, Split, is how the project worked sometime ago. In this option, instead of having a Category:Anime and manga by genre, we would have Category:Anime by genre and Category:Manga by genre, and so, Category:Science fiction anime and manga would not exist and instead there would be Category:Science fiction anime and Category:Science fiction manga. In this option Doraemon would be part of these two categories instead of a single one. Note that this is how non-Japanese animation and comic book projects work, they have an article per media and categories per media, but in the WikiProject Anime and manga, as you can see, this generates a severe problem of overlapping by creating countless of unnecessary subcategories for single articles which cover essentially the same topic.

The original option mentioned by Codrdan was to create a "super category" that was to be called either Category:Japanese pop art or Category:Anime and manga which would be the parent of all Category:Anime and manga by genre (and the "grandparent" of Category:Science fiction anime and manga) and also the parent of both Category:Anime and Category:Manga. This way Doraemeon would remain as it is but the problem of Category:Anime and Category:Manga being parents of Category:Anime and manga by genre gets resolved and WP:CAT is no longer an issue. This is no longer the option, but because of the way it was presented, it caused a lot of confusion that eventually became option two. Jfgslo (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

>This is no longer the option
??? —Codrdan (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer an option within the four options that are currently up for vote. I don't mean to say that it's not a possibility, just that it's not one of the four options given. This is with the purpose of clarifying that option three is not the same as your original proposition. If you feel that it should be also considered, feel free to add it as another option in the previous section, making sure that it doesn't get confused with the others. Jfgslo (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What do "this" and "it" refer to? The "original option" you described looks identical to the "organize" option in the consensus list. —Codrdan (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I will have to change the example I was using because things are completely different if all is according to your original proposition of a super-category. Jfgslo (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anime and manga

I thought there was a decent consensus for Category:Anime and manga in the "miscategorized" discussion, so I created the category and moved all related material into it. As I mentioned earlier, this is just standard Wikipedia categorization practice, so it's not a radical move. Farix has complained about it though, so maybe there needs to be some kind of more explicit discussion about it. Thank you Farix for at least not undoing everything. —Codrdan (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because taking all of those cats out of Category:Anime and Category:Manga just makes things far more confusing to navigate and everyone else who participated acknowledged that. It should never have been done in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see a consensus in the discussion. If there was a consensus it was that if a consensus was reached about a category change, it shouldn't be named Category:Japanese pop art but Category:Anime and manga. Jfgslo (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to say that we have consensus—my reading of the discussion is that we're still proposing different approaches, and haven't necessarily settled on one of them as the best—but I don't think there's (much) harm done here.

In any case, I think it would be beneficial for everyone involved in this discussion to sound off at the straw poll above; that should give us a decent gauge of current opinion that we can move forward with. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories vs. tags

Maybe I'm finally starting to get a clue about this place. You anime buffs seem to be using Category:Anime and Category:Manga as association tags rather than parent categories. You're putting a Category:Anime tag on every article that's related to anime, even if it's also about manga and/or other things, and likewise for Category:Manga. Technically speaking, this is not in line with WP:CAT, but maybe a tag system is more helpful for individual articles, since so many of them are combined. The only things that really need to be reorganized are the "anime and manga" categories, since they're obviously metacatories of Category:Anime and manga. So don't worry about recategorizing individual articles. These options (or at least the "organize" option) are only about the overall structure of the top-level categories. —Codrdan (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you think that's still too narrow, Category:Japanese art is appropriate as a level beyond that.陣内_Jinnai 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting chapter lists

Should the titles of the split chapters be like One Piece's, List of One Piece chapters (1–186), or Case Closed, List of Case Closed volumes (1–30). Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the format of the One Piece lists. The parent article isn't titled "List of One Piece chapters", because that would be silly, seeing as not a single chapter is listed there. The sub articles, however, are no different from any other spun-out chapter lists. Goodraise 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest using "volumes". All of these lists organized the manga based on volume releases instead of chapters in the first place. The fact that the lists are misnamed should not be perpetuated in a split. —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

i always thought about it but since chapters was used in most articles, that it would be ok. if we were to change this, woul d we neede a bot or do it all ourselves manually? or do both?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"All of these lists organized the manga based on volume releases instead of chapters in the first place." Perhaps that's the problem. We don't organize episodes by DVD box sets. So, why are we doing it with chapters? A chapter's date of first publication seems to me to be at least equally as valuable a piece of information as a volume's release date. If we include them, then those lists would become true chapter lists and not just lists of volume TOCs. (Of course, I don't expect this suggestion to win me any popularity contests. I vividly remember how people jumped at my throat when I suggested the ANN encyclopedia might not be reliable. Which is also the reason I didn't bring this up at the time we got rid of |VolumeExtras=.) Goodraise 11:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"We don't organize episodes by DVD box sets." Depending on the type of box set, such as a season box set, we do. But a chapter by chapter summary would probably be a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO for excessive plot and extremely trivial details. We can get away with an episode list because an episode is a much more complete story unit than a chapter. There is also not a many episodes as there are chapters as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Depending on the type of box set, such as a season box set, we do." I see. So, if a series, which thus far has been released in season box sets, would suddenly be released in box sets, which don't correspond to that particular series' definition of a "season", then we'd ignore the season divisions and go by the box sets? List of Some Great Anime episodes (box set 5) for example? Don't make me laugh. "But a chapter by chapter summary would probably be a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO for excessive plot and extremely trivial details." That's nonsense. First of all, nobody suggested increasing the level of detail. Although, I don't think a sentence per chapter would be too much in any case. I also didn't suggest listing summaries per chapter instead of volumes. Although with this as well, I don't see the harm in doing it. We certainly have some amount of leeway, when it comes to increasing the size of plot summaries in chapter lists, seeing as featured episode lists assign much more space for plot summaries in regard to the amount of story than featured chapter lists do. I can't speak for all series in this regard of course, but taking One Piece as example: The early anime episodes correspond to roughly two chapters, while some more recent non-filler episodes adapt as little as one chapter. With the average volume summary being twice as big as an episode summary and an average of nine chapters per volume, that comes down to episode summaries having about three times as much summary text per amount of narrative than volumes do right now. In that light, I see absolutely no danger of violating NOT#IINFO this way. In fact, with the addition of publication dates for the individual chapters, we'd shift the ratio of plot to "real world" information towards the latter. "We can get away with an episode list because an episode is a much more complete story unit than a chapter." This one you'll have to explain to me. As I see it, the average anime episode is no different from a manga chapter, other than being longer and in a different medium. I really have no idea what you mean with "more complete". "There is also not a [sic] many episodes as there are chapters as well." So what? The total amount of human knowledge is huge. That doesn't stop us from trying to create an encyclopedia containing it all. What's your point? Goodraise 19:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have always understood it, we organize chapter lists into volumes merely as a matter of convenience; from a technical standpoint, for instance, having one template call per volume results in far less wikicode and much lower post-expand numbers than one per chapter would (this is offset somewhat by our current use of {{Nihongo}} on every chapter, but not by a whole lot). As for adding chapter release dates, while I would like that very much, every date would require a source, and considering the overwhelming difficulty in finding a source even for the month and year that a weekly series started, it doesn't leave me with much hope for the vast majority of series. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The date is normally written on the cover of the publishing magazine. Thus, if you have the name of the magazine (should be stated in the lead anyway) and the date, you have everything you need to verify the information. So, no problem there. As for the convenience: A template call per item of a list can't possibly be asked too much, if we even need to go there. Goodraise 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, sounds impossible for some magazines. I haven't found any information about the 1994 5th volume of Weekly Shonen Sunday so it would be impossible to get the date. No websites have any information about it either. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the point I was trying to make - even if you know the exact issue you're looking for, it can be extremely hard to track down a copy to get a date, and that's assuming you know the issue or even the time period (as I was saying above, it can be next to impossible to find a definitive *month*, even for weekly series). For some reason, most people just don't seem interested in documenting serialization dates for manga, even though similar information is almost religiously tracked amongst American comics fans. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess I'll have to clarify myself some more. I'm not suggesting we should make the publication dates of every chapter a mandatory part of each list. The point I'm trying to make is the following: Renaming all our chapter lists to volume lists is a step in the wrong direction. If publication dates of individual chapters are available, great! If they're not, no big deal. Anyway, the difficulty of locating these sources does not make such information any less verifiable. Goodraise 10:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)