Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Anime references

We really need to do a better job at including reference cites. In most cases it should be easy, cite the anime and manga series. Unfortunately, anime article editors have gotten into bad habit of assuming the anime or manga as a reference without actually citing them, something they shouldn't be doing. An effort should be made to see that all information in anime article is properly cited, even when it comes directly from the anime or manga. We also need to figure out ways to reference fansub translations and scanlations. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some citation templates that will help make things a little easier.

• {{cite book}}
• {{cite episode}}
• {{cite press release}}
• {{cite video}}
• {{cite web}}
• {{comic book reference}}
• {{comic strip reference}}

Additional citation templates can be found in Category:Citation templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh crude, I was working on new anime and manga citation templates and look at the beast I've created. ^^; --TheFarix (Talk) 01:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I use ANN, AnimeNfo and several episodes of an anime to add content to an article, I should cite them all? I wish someone told me this six months ago --Squilibob 09:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who you use them. If it is to get technical deltails—such as director, performers, writer, studio, etc.—then there is no need to cite because it is considered "common knowledge". I'm not so sure about original airdates, but it probably doesn't have to be cited either. But things such as plot and character developments over the span of a series should be cited.

BTW, I'm thinking of changing the {{cite episode}} to conform to either the MLA or APA styles instead of its apparent "made up" style. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned that we should find a way to reference fansub translations and scanlations. There are just a few points I'd like to bring up:

• Firstly, no matter how you look at it, translation without permission is against international copyright law (as opposed to being a grey area). Should we be referencing things which are technically illegal?
• Fansubs are not official, and can they thus be considered "fact" in an encyclopedia?
• Translation is an art - in the event that several fansubs are released and interpret a part differently, how can we justify the accuracy of the data in the article?
• Even if some of us get our information from fansubs, shouldn't the reference be to the actual anime/manga as opposed to the fansub, considering that the media is the source material as opposed to the sub?

Karn-b 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who translates a manga or anime, officially or unofficially, should be credited in a cite, if only to let the person checking the references is a translation. The question is not if, but how fan translations should best be handled. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese names are given in western order

Wondering whether we should create a template that could be used to precede character sections in articles. Something like {{JNWO}} (Japanese names western order) that would expand to Japanese names are given in western order or however it is decided to word it by consensus. It would both help standardize the practice for anime and manga articles and save some time. I always find myself typing something different when I add this sort of disclaimer to an article --Squilibob 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point. According to WP:MOS-JA, Japanese names should be in western order unless it is of a historical (pre-Meiji era) figure. I would think that such a disclaimer—and disclaimers are often put up for TfD votes—would be rather pointless. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see a point - the MOS is for WP contributors, someone who is just coming here for information cannot be expected to read the MOS first. Shiroi Hane 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok it doesn't have to be a template. I just want to create a standard message that everyone can agree to and use to get the message across properly. It is a goal of this project to create standardization of anime and manga articles after all. Another standard that I have just thought about that should be discussed is how external links should be displayed for official websites in Japanese. I usually put one like so:

• (in Japanese) Official site

but have seen many other methods. It would be nice if we had such standards so that pages all follow the same layout. That's why we use the Animanga infobox for instance. --Squilibob 09:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What I think should be done 1) Include formatting guidelines in a drop-down box on the {{WikiProject Japan}}, {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} and other relevent templates. 2) We should then include a template that produces (subst would work, I think) <!-- Please see the talk page for guidelines on formatting information for this article, including guidelines for name usage, name order, romanization, kana/kanji usage, etc.. etc... --> --Kunzite 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting the guidelines in a drop down box may be helpful, but formatting guidelines are pretty big and are only going to get bigger. The number of pages that include it are many. Any huge talkpage header boxes will put a strain on the servers. The {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} drop down is already getting quite big. --Squilibob 06:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ANN Encyclopedia link templates

Just like there are a series of IMDb link templates, I've created a set of link templates for the ANN Encyclopedia.

• User:TheFarix/Sandbox/Ann anime
• User:TheFarix/Sandbox/Ann manga
• User:TheFarix/Sandbox/Ann person (to rename to Ann name to match other link templates)
• User:TheFarix/Sandbox/Ann company

I would like everyone's opinions on the format and names of these templates. Should the names begin with "ann" or "anne"? Should the word "Encyclopedia" be included in the wikilink? You can currently see the templates in action at my sandbox. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative it may be possible to have a single template for these with parameters like {{ANN| anime=name}}, {{ANN| manga=name}}, etc. If the word encyclopedia is in the text somewhere then a reader who has no idea what Anime News Network is would then know that it has an encyclopedia and it is not a news link. --Squilibob 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A single {{ANN}} may not be feasible. At least, I'm not sure how to handle it while at the same time avoiding stupidity such as {{ANN|anime=name|manga=name|person=name|company=name}}. Exactly which one will the "id" parameter be associated with and which parameters should take president over the others? I think it is just better to keep them all separate as they are.

BTW, {{ann name}} is now available for use. The other three will be available soon as soon as an admin cleans up the mess I made when I moved the templates' talk pages instead of the templates themselves. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything has been published to the template namespace.

• {{ann anime}}
• {{ann manga}}
• {{ann name}}
• {{ann company}}

Hopefully someone can figure out how AnimeNfo's URLs work and maybe I fix AniDB's link tempate(s) to match ANN's and IMDb's tempaltes. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ISO date format

I just wondering what everyone's opinion is on using the ISO date format in articles. I know that the ANN Encyclopedia often lists dates in the ISO format whenever it can. And since putting the square brackets will cause the wiki to automatically format the date to the users preference (ex. [[2006-04-26]] becomes 2006-04-26), using the ISO format shouldn't be a problem. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the Japanese (ISO 8601) format. It makes converting dates from Japanese articles much easier. I've been using a macro that does [[2005年]][[11月17日]] → [[2005]], [[November 17]] when translating articles. But [[2005年]][[11月17日]] → [[2005-11-17]] would be easier when I manually convert. --Kunzite 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the idea using standard wikipedia date format (e.g. 26 April2006) was that user preferences would reformat that date into the users preferred date format? (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) "Date Formatting") I know the date format per-user is selectable in preferences... I'm sure I'm missing the point, but if I don't ask I won't learn. n.n ~Kylu (u|t) 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

ISO 8601 dates do get reformatted per user preferences: [[2005-11-17]] → 2005-11-17 Unregistered users do get a mouseover text with the spelled out date. --Kunzite 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The best way to avoid ambiguity for both the reader and the editor is to express the month as a word. Non-registered users see the dates as they are expressed. The Iso8601 format may be confusing to some readers such as children, so I prefer to use the month as a word method. The Iso8601 format does have an important use: in tables where columns need to be a fixed width. --Squilibob 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely oppose any format that does not include the full month (in text), i.e. April 26, or 26 April. The reason is that unregistered users (who constitute most of our readers), as well as registered users who don't have a special preference (i.e. all new users and editors who want to easily spot date formatting errors), will have a problem understand a format like 2006-04-26 (or similar). I think text encyclopedias use a date format like AAA XX, XXXX (Apr 26, 2006). Can't remember for sure. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I know most of the English language printed encyclopedias I've run across use "US" style date formatting (July 4, 1776, etc) however I think it might be a distribution issue. If, for instance, I picked up a Japanese encyclopedia, wouldn't it show Japanese style dates? Same with Arabic and French? Technical encyclopedias (I've got an ARRL reference book handy) seem to use ISO dates, however. Just food for thought. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guides and articles for individual episodes

I ran across One Piece Episode Guide today. Now, an episode guide is one thing. But One Piece has over 300 episodes, and giving each one a 15KB "summary" is ludicrous! Wikipedia is not for frame-by-frame transcriptions of copyrighted material from other media. Can somebody please do something about User:OnePieceMaster5000? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A collective WP:AFD request might be the best bet to handle that. --Squilibob

Well, WP does have (for example) 170 individual ST:TNG episode articles.. Shiroi Hane 03:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Until there's a separate WikiMedia project for summaries (e.g. WikiFilms), you will probably meet a lot of opposition for such a mass AfD. And I don't know if such a project has even been proposed yet. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of doing those type of pages, but.. It doesn't break that guideline in my opinion. (In fact, I'd refer you to the "not paper" section of that guideline.) However, if the Simpsons editors can do whole pages with cram-packed with such information for every episode of the show, I don't see why this editor can't do the same for One Piece. Throw the Simpsons episodes guides in the AfD with the ST:TNG episodes and OP. --Kunzite 03:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I'm_Luffy!_The_Man_Who_Will_Become_Pirate_King Seems that some people have already had this discussion. --Kunzite 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And a final bit of wisdom from Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes:

Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.

I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

--Kunzite 04:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kunzite. Crossover and tidy. I know a bit about One Piece, and will be happy to help. Dee man45 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against individual episode articles. Those One Piece articles are entirely a narritive and I thought that was against Wikipedia policy, but I can't any related policy anywhere, so it's fine IMO. --Squilibob 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a brief glance as I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King. What it is seriously lacking is an intro actually stating that it is a One Piece episode. It also needs to be pared down so it's more of a summary and less of (nod to the late Douglas Aadms) "he woke up, walked to the bathroom, washed his hands, went to the toilet, realised he'd done this in the wrong order and washed his hands again...". We also need to ensure that we are using the official English titles for the epsiodes, where they exist. Shiroi Hane 09:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If possible, the Japanese and English versions should be consolidated. There is little reason to have different pages for each. --TheFarix (Talk) 10:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They need serious clean-up and wikification, however... I'm currently researching the possibility of the articles being copyvios. [1] They were taken from a wiki-like site dedicated to One Piece. As there was no copyright statement on the site I've put in an inquiry to the text creator to see if it was acceptable that the text be here. --Kunzite 12:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that the creators of both the articles are the same person. --Squilibob 13:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All works has an implicit copyright, whether the owner places a © notice on it or not. If the articles are c&p copys of pages from a website, then the articles need to be tag as such and the copyright owner should be contaced. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE

Site owner says:

Give me a few days to look into this. Personally, I don't really mind. But our summaries have been mostly written by one or two people, none of those being me. I want to get their opinions on it (they might have submitted them; I know one of them has been active in Wikipedia's One Piece section before) first. My gut feeling is that they (and the other editors) would want a creative-commons 'attribution' style copyright on their material. I'll try to give you something decisive asap.

--Kunzite 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 2 The author cross posted them to wikipedia so they get to stay... I guess. Who wants to help clean? --Kunzite 01:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Korean anime"

Reposted from Category talk:Anime since I was not getting any response there:
The page intro states "The term anime in English is generally taken to refer to Japanese animation; it is also sometimes used to refer to animation from elsewhere which has been drawn in that style.". Just make this clear, are we or are we not including in the Anime cat and it's subcats titles that are "anime-style" but have little or no Japanese involvement; i.e. are titles such as Spheres (anime) to be included and, if so, where is the line drawn, e.g. should things like Avatar: The Last Airbender also then be included? Shiroi Hane 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if the title in question originally had Japanese audio? That would be a good prerequistite. --Squilibob 08:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Newtype USA, March 2005 has this to say:

...On page 58 of the February Newtype USA you were talking about Korean animation and mentioned that you couldn’t find a Korean term for “animation.” In Korea, we have our own original term: manhwa-yonghwa. Actually Koreans used to use this word, but sadly these days it’s been replaced by simply just saying “animation.” Jee-yeon Kwon • Via the Internet [2]

So, Korean animation is best term to use for this as I see it. Since there's already a Category:Russian animation we could add a Korean. We have the terms of crossovers like Amerime, Amerimanga, La nouvelle manga, Manhwa, and Manhua. (Avatar is listed under Amerime (I dislike that term though.))

Anyway, what I think should be done: 1) Add section about influence of Japanese animation on artists across the world. 2) Make links to these various other pages that talk about anime-influenced shows. 3)Make a seperate categories under the Category:Animation for each nationality that wikipedia has a categorizable ammount of articles. i.e. Category:Russian animation and add a "see also" at the top of the main anime category if it contains a signifigant ammount of anime-influenced works. 4) If a work uses anime-style and is produced between Japan and other countries then both categories should be used. --Kunzite 16:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions. If you make a category for each country then they could be fairly empty categories. I don't know how many there are but a single category called non-Japanese anime may be sufficient if there aren't a lot. If one country has an extensive list then it would just become a subcategory of that one. --Squilibob 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Category:Korean animation created and populated, it had enough entries to justify. Does it fall under this project or not? --Kunzite 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Article names again

Recently Sister Princess (anime) was moved to Sister Princess (TV series) with the mover citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) as his/her reason for moving the page. If this is convention then a lot of similarly named pages should be moved as well. --Squilibob 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think such a move just adds ambiguity instead of removing it. Some protesting definitly needs to be done. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is the possibility of an anime title existing as both an anime and as a live-action TV series, then I'd suggest we try to remove the ambiguity via consensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). ~Kylu (u|t) 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aim for the Ace!, Great Teacher Onizuka, Touch (manga) are all combined pages currently. Trying to think of more.... --Squilibob 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the discussion where the "policy" was agreed on. Two for votes, one against. I consider anime a "genre" and conider it to fall under rule #2. --Kunzite 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anime that are OVAs do not get aired on television but still will have (anime) in their name. An argument could be made to keep (anime) instead of (TV series) simply for the reason of consistancy between OVAs and TV anime on top of what TheFarix noted about ambiguity. I haven't seen any anime films with (film) or (movie) on the end of the name either. --Squilibob 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to Squilibob for not mentioning me by name as the person who moved Sister Princess from its original location to the one specified by the naming convention. As the one who pushed through the convention (with community consensus) I think I should provide some background. Prior to the convention there was a mess of disambiguators (TV) (comedy TV) (sitcom) (comedy) (drama) (soap opera) (telenovela) (cartoon) (ABC) (CBS) (BBC). After the convention was resolved I have renamed probably 500 television shows [3] [4] [5] under the new convention with very little complaint thusfar. 99% of the articles fit neatly under the convention. I personally do not think that "anime" is any different, but am willing to hear or read any arguments to show me otherwise.

Farix has argued for abiguity sake that "anime" is preferred, but that is in part why I have been busy renaming. TV series is often the only disambiguation needed but prior to the convention people felt it necessary to add that the show was a cartoon, or a sitcom or a drama needlessly confused people as to where to expect the article. For example is Lost (TV series) a TV series, a drama, an (ABC) show, a (US) show or what. Because of this confusion I have personally merged about 40 articles. In most cases TV series is the best and most appropriate disambiguator.

Thusfar, I have tried to be careful in not renaming shows that use the "(anime)" disambiguator because I know that articles often cover material not specific to the television show including most notably Pokemon (anime). However I thought Sister Princess was a case where the article focused specifically on television show in particular. It was the only "(anime)" AFAIK that I have renamed according to the convention. The show was developed for television and broadcast on television. Under that definition it is a television series or a television program.

However, Squilibob about OVA's may make my point moot. There shouldn't be needless confusion about what was on television and what wasn't. I don't know much about anime (though I love Trigun) and don't know how many OVAs there are and series produced for television. I guess this is a long winded way of saying, "Oops if I renamed your article, but I did it under considered thought. The convention can be changed if needed." Your continued insight is appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you did OK, especially considering there is apparently a Sister Princess video game, which would necessitate a differentiation, I should think. 63.21.81.221 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's bad enough that we have to deal with anime articles names with (anime) and (manga), but throwing in yet another naming convention, (TV series), just sows more confusion. How are people going to know which one to use when they search or create an article? And if there is a movie or OVA is released at some point in the future, does that mean we should create a separate article since it won't fit into the existing article's naming convention? It would be great to have just one naming convention for all anime and manga articles, but right now the (TV series) naming convention makes things worse instead of better. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If I saw an article called You're Under Arrest (TV series) then I would definately assume that it was the live action and not the anime. Things are better the way they are, state the obvious and call them (anime). All we need to do is create our own naming conventions, the problem is there isn't any currently as part of the project. --Squilibob 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please no (live action) or (TV) or other specific variant. Having a bunch of convention is confusing yes, but its much much better than no convention. There was a fairly large fight over TV movies. Is it a film, does it fit under their convention or ours? In the end it was decided that it should be treated as a film and as a result there has been LESS confusion about where movies/films should be. As far as renaming because of new material I think the title of the article should reflect what the majority of the article is about. I've seen many articles under one naming convention that has material about both; not ideal, but most readers and editors understand. It's not that hard to create a convention. Squilibob has a provided a decent start. If you'd like I'd gladly help. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So anime articles should just use (anime), whether it is a TV series, movie, or OVA. When the article mainly focuses on the manga or is about a manga that has no anime associated with it, then (manga) should be used. Live action series or movies, however, will follow the rest of the naming convention set in Wikipedia:Naming conventions --TheFarix (Talk) 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, but one point. Single articles that cover metaseries - manga, TV series, OVA, films, etc. should use (anime). But if the article has been broken up into several articles which cover each aspect of the releases I think that the correct naming conventions should be used, i.e. (film) or (TV series) or (OVA). TV series or movies that are single releases, no other manga or OVA related to it should be treated under their specific convention. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What about these articles: Ah! My Goddess (TV), Android Kikaida (TV series), Dragon Ball (TV series), Dragon Warrior (TV series), Monster Rancher (TV series), Noir (TV series), Robotech (TV series), Simoun (anime/manga) ? --Squilibob 01:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a proposal. Feel free to scream at me, yell, pull your mallet from Hammerspace, etc...:

• For those animes/mangas/whatever that only have one product, just use the name of the product.
• For those who have two or more, have a mini-template to link the various products of the franchise together.

(i.e.) Other Slayers articles: Manga Anime OVAs Movie Pasta Whatever

• Possibly, have one central-themed semi-disambiguation article and have it link to the various specific products.

Kylu winces and waits for the mallet... ~Kylu (u|t) 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Content is key. If the various sections have enough content to justify a seperate article they should have seperate articles. If there isn't enough content and the article needs disambiguation the dominant form should be chosen for the disambiguation page. i.e. If Nerima Daikon Brothers needed to be disambig'd it should use (anime) even though it has a manga. If there are no dominant media, pick the earliest released. (We should avoide the awkward (anime and manga).) We shouldn't make stubby little articles just because we can. --Kunzite 23:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Voice Actors

I realize that it's stated that we should follow the biography guidelines when working on articles about voice actors, but there is some info that is specific to this situation. Should things like the name the person was credited as be included? i.e. Emilie Brown was mostly credited as Ruby Marlowe (despite what the article says), so should this be reflected, like perhaps a (credited as ...) or a separate section for each pseudonym the VA used? --Sopoforic 23:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Stage names are mentioned in MOS:BIO. Usually at the end of the lead, though it can be anywhere in the article depeding on the notability. see: Steven Blum (though it's one of our listy seiy0 articls) --Kunzite 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I mean. MOS:BIO says what to do if they are best known by a pseudonym, but my query is whether I should note how the VA was credited in each work, or whether I should just mention that certain pseudonyms were used. Also, Steven Blum has very large list of his work. What's the standard for notability? --Sopoforic 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I should read in more detail. Sorry. My opinion: No. Listing the names that actors are credited each work gets too much into listcruft. We already have enough of that in our list-heavy seiyu/VA articles as it is. Always make re-directs so that links are correctly made-that's what matters. Voice actors are usually pretty anonymous outside of fan bases in the US. Steven Blum is one of the better known and more prolific western voice actors (excluding the Mel Blancs). There was also some controversy over his name. Apparently he denied being one of his pseudonyms and there was all sorts of confusion and accusations in the anime community. (See talk page of his article.) To me that's really the only thing that makes a section devoted to stage names notable. --Kunzite 04:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, Emilie Brown is not the same person as Bridget Hoffman. They have similar voices and have shared roles before (like Emilie providing the singing voice of Rem in Trigun while Bridget did the speaking voice), but that doesn't make her an alias. Just check their photos in the CrystalAcids.com Database and you will see they don't look like the same person either.

Next, from what I've read from voice actors and dub staff posting on message boards, aliases seem to be a pretty sensitive issue for some actors and discussion of them is even banned in some places like AnimeOnDVD's English Track. I've never been one to be hard on the issue, but discretion needs to be used. Information on IMDb can be misleading, for one thing.

Anyone know if there is any such sensitivity to pseudonyms as far as seiyū are concerned? When I looked at the Japanese article on Kimi ga Nozomu Eien, I noticed "Tomomi Uehara" had a separate entry and that in general the alias names didn't connect to the real names as I've seen on Anime News Network. It does make me wonder... EmperorBrandon 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While the subject of voice acting is raised. I would like a convention to exist for what term should be used as a convention for seiyū. Under character names I have seen seiyū, Voiced by, Voice Actor, and sometimes nothing at all just a link to the person's page. I prefer using seiyū, linking the first instance of it. --Squilibob 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Voice actor (seiyū)" -- Ned Scott 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an English wiki and seiyū is not in wide use nor is it well know by general English readers, Voice Actor should be the term used for titles and heading. Seiyū is also jargonish and should always been explained in the context of the article (ex. Japanese voice actors, called seiyū). All of this is in keeping with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. "Voiced by" is a more neutral and can handle both Japanese and English voice actors. It also doesn't seem to be as loaded as either seiyū or voice actor. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pro-seiyū. Its one of the better loanwords coming into usage from Japan, unlike otaku or kawaii which are very fancrufty. Kyaa the Catlord 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'm very pro-Japanese when it comes to the anime section, the encyclopedia is for general purposes and still remains a niche word when it comes to people in general. In this case, I think it would be clearer if we were to use the word "voice actor/actress" instead.

Also, while I can see the argument for "voiced by", remember that those general people may not be able to differentiate between Japanese male and female names. I am unable to see how the gender usage of actor/actress can actually affect neutrality - it actually adds to the clarity of the information.

While we're on the topic, I noticed that the kanji for the seiyu names in Rozen Maiden were removed. Although I can see why one may see it as redundancy, I see it as adding information, so those who are interested in the actual kanji name can see the kanji immediately, without having to load up the seiyu page. Not everyone is on broadband, and this caters to both the casual searcher, and the more seasoned vet. Also, what is defined as being "overuse" of kanji? Also, if we look at the guidelines for Japan related articles, you will see that the kanji are included for the Japanese names. I apologise if it offends the original editor - I realise the intentions were good, but I have reverted the article to including the kanji again so that we don't have to actually put them back in later if the discussion comes out in favour of the kanji name - removing is easier than adding after all!

Oh, and one more thing about guidelines:

From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles: "So relax, this article contains no rules. Remember: If rules and guidance make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."

Karn-b 15:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that kanji should be limited to the anime's title and character names. Any use beyond that should be rare and generally to demonstrate a specific point. More then that, I consider it overuse. Also, it is common practice to link the VAs to their articles, which already contains the VA's name in kanji, making the the kanji in the anime article redundant. It also doesn't take long to load a VA article on dialup unless the servers are slow or the article contains numerous pictures. And finally, I haven't seen any other anime article where the VAs' names are accompanied by kanji. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that seiyū should be used for Japanese voice actors. These are professionals who work under that title. Being a seiyū is much more than just stepping into a booth and reading a script, seiyū also work on drama cds, make appearances, sometimes work live shows. It is more than simply voice acting, these men and women represent their respective characters and we should honor them by using their proper title. I'm also for keeping of the kanji in articles which include this information, I'd be hesitant to remove ANYTHING which adds to the information given by our articles. Deleting is such an easy path. Kyaa the Catlord 07:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And if I remember correctly, there was a guideline where it encouraged addition, as opposed to deletion - which would go against the spirit of Wikipedia where information would be built. I can see what you mean by seiyu as well....in any case, I'm not too picky and I don't see a problem in maintain the status quo with people wanting to use seiyu in some, but voice actor/actress in others. Karn-b 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If a voice actor or seiyū was credited under a name different from the one they normally use, the name should be listed as [[VA's article name|Credited Name]]. If there is an article for the VA, then the kanji shouldn't be included in the article. If there isn't an article for the VA, then it's fine to include the kanji in parentheses after the VA's name until an article is created. Once an article is created, the kanji should no longer be included (in keeping with WP:MOS-JA). That's the way I've always done it. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, create a stub for the VA. Chances are that there are already several "redlinks" for that VA. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an even better idea. (^_^) ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 21:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For use of Voiced by as opposed to Voice Actor: When you have a table of information, the heading for a column should be neutral, as has been suggested, by using Voiced by. See Gakuen Alice which doesn't use Voiced by yet, but you get the idea.

We could adopt the Japanese "CV" (for "character voice"). (^_^) ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For use of Kanji: I'm not sure that everyone who access en.wikipedia can see the kanji. It's fine for the majority of WinXP IE users, OSX Safari users or Firefox users but I'm sure there are people out there using legacy systems without the browser or OS capability to see the kanji. Correct me if I'm wrong and everyone can the characters. --Squilibob 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's important to use the {{Nihongo}} template, as it provides a link to more information on Japanese characters. All modern browsers and major operating systems support UTF-8 characters, sho most visitors should be able to view the characters, or easily install the fonts so that they can. I use both Windows XP and OS X, and I've had no problems viewing almost all language fonts on the site (OS X generally displays more of them, though). I imagine there are OpenType fonts available for most any OS out there (unless it's older than about 5 years, i.e. Windows 98, Mac OS 9, etc.). Anything newer than that shouldn't have too much trouble. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Even with UTF-8 support, if you don't have the asian character sets installed (which WinXP SP2 doesn't by default), you are still going to get '?'. I found this out just recently when I did a complete wipe and reinstall of my year old Dell. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

And that's why you should use the Nihongo template on Japanese since it points to Help:Japanese. Perhaps we should include a brief section (on Help:Japanese) explaining that in order to see the Japanese characters they need to have the Asian character sets installed (at least for Windows; OS X does it by default). Maybe we could also include links to Microsoft's site about how to install them (though I can't find it since the Microsoft site is horribly designed and finding anything there is almost by luck only). That would certainly be better than not using them at all. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do research and create a proper seiyu stub... i.e. check all of the spelling variations add all of the main roles. Be my guest! But if you're going to create a no-content-deletionist-bait stub, please just post a request the seiyu name (w/ kanji if you have it): Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Seiyū and someone will get to it eventually. Same thing with anime and manga. Don't clear redlinks with one sentence stubs just for the hell of it. --Kunzite 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In a table of information, I agree that we should use "voiced by". But if the information is placed in bullet form, like in Rozen Maiden, then we should specifically specify whether the person voicing the character is a voice actor or an actress. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states that "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted", and using actor and actress will increase the accessibility of the article: don't forget that those not exposed to the culture will not know Natsuko is a female name, or Kei is a male name.

About not seeing any article without seiyu's kanji name, let me just pitch this in:

Firstly, I went on a random tour of anime articles and found that 12 out of 20 did not have information on the seiyu at all. However, out of the remaining eight, five of them had the kanji names for the seiyu.

I have also read WP:MOS-JA, but did not find a section saying that the kanji name should not be included if the seiyu has their own page. Which section are you referring to exactly?

I would still suggest we keep the kanji names for the seiyu while using the nihongo template - reasons being for immediate reference and in order to cater to a wide audience (those who are interested in seeing the kanji immediately, and those who can't read it anyway).

Karn-b 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the information I was remembering was from a discussion about this very topic (to include Japanese, or to not include it). The discussion was never codified. However, that is being fixed right now as a proposal has been made to codify it in WP:MOS-JA. Feel free to visit the talk page there and express your opinion on the matter if you wish. The proposal is at the bottom of the talk page. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we come to a resolution on Seiyū/Voiced by?

Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?

Ok, it seems that the majority of us are agreeing to use "Voice by", "Voice Actor", or "Voice Actress" when giving VA credits in an anime article—which is basically what this part of the dispute has been over. I've only seen one real holdout for seiyū. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why change the status quo? Wiki is pro-growth, anti-deletion. You keep going to existing pages and making your POV changes. I'm changing them back as I see them. You go to an encyclopedia to learn, not remain ignorant. Kyaa the Catlord 11:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The status quo is a mixed use of "Voice by", "Voice Actor", "Voice Actress" and "Seirū". We are trying to reach consensus as to which one to use. And do not engage in an edit war until after a consensus has been reached. I will also remind you of WP:POINT. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You changed a page I've taken part into from "Seiyū" to "Voiced by". You started an edit war there, although if you check your talk page, I kindly asked you not to war over this on the 29th. Please, kindly stop removing material from articles simply because, in your POV, "Voiced by" is better. Kyaa the Catlord 11:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Voiced by" was what used when the VAs were first merged into the character discription. You were the one who engaged in a POV edit war by changeing them to "Seiyū" while this issue was being debated. Besides, it is not removing any information, but using an English term instead of a Japanese ter per the previous cited guidelines. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[6] Bullshit. I restored the original word choice. You may play a revisionist game, but I simply restored what was there before you started pushing your POV. Kyaa the Catlord 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reread the discussion above. Seems that everyone else is settling on "Voice by", "Voice Actor", or "Voice Actress". You are the only one insisting on "Seiyū", so you are the one pushing your POV. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are also the one assuming bad faith in my edit previous to the beginning of the discussion above. I would like you to know that I haven't changed any occurrence of "Seiyū" to "Voice by" while the issue is being debated, unless it was to preserve the existing use prier to the debate. You, on the other hand, have. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• rolls eyes* Is that the best you can do? A personal attack? Seriously. Kyaa the Catlord 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the one saying that I am a deletionist, which isn't the case as the two terms are equivalent, and pushing a POV in my edits. Both of which are personal attacks that assumes bad faith. You have also announced that you will engage in an edit war to push your own POV on what you view as the "status quo"—of which there currently is none, otherwise we wouldn't be discussed this issue. I try my best to see that my edits comply with existing wiki policies and guidelines, particularly WP:1SP and WP:BOLD. The former goes against the use of "seiyū" since it generally unknown by average English readers and there is an equivalent English term.

My personal attack? The only thing I've done was point out your own hypocrisy with "pushing a POV" in article edits while a discussion on the issue was currently underway. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Everybody? Most everyone above seems to believe that changing the status quo is unnecessary. Some have even questioned whether going through and deleting information is against the policy of wikipedia. I'm not the one going through pages and removing existing content that meets the status quo. The majority of people who have said anything have said, basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is to use "Seiyū" when listing Japanses voice talent and "VA" when listing English talent, e.g. Characters of Negima. Shiroi Hane 12:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is also my stance. This is the status quo. It works, it ain't broken, why are we discussing this? Kyaa the Catlord 12:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about personal preferences, but what is best for the reader's comprehension and what complies with Wiki policies and guidlines. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a simple use of "Voice" w/ actors after the character's name is the best method. It is short and effectively gets across the point about what kind of information follows (though there's no problem with "Voiced by" and "Voice Actor/Actress" either, I suppose). "CV" or "VA" would be even shorter but not everyone would get what the acronym means on first seeing it. I don't approve of inconsistent terms between the Japanese-language and English-language VA's, so I generally don't like the use of "Seiyū" in anime articles. EmperorBrandon 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to come up with a list of advantages to each phrase. Please add to it as you see fit.

Seiyū

• Fairly anime Japan specific. (it's used for any voice actor in Japan)
• Concise.
• Teaches the reader the terminolgy
• Specific to Japanese people.

Voice actor/actress

• Gender specific and can be used as such, though not suitable as a heading of a table.

Voice by (or Voiced by)

• Concise.
• States the obvious and is non-ambiguous.
• Indiscriminate.

As you can determine from this list of advantages, each has a case. While ruling the use of one phrase out has caused objections (and edit wars) perhaps certain phrases can be used in certain situations and that is what I would like us all to decide on as a guideline. --Squilibob 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, so why don't we just have a vote? I'd say we just use "Voiced by". Otherwise, I'd say that we can write "voice actor" in other contexts, and link to seiyu instead when referring to the japanese voice actors. Seiyu != Voice actor, and readers should be aware of it. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 12:34, 07 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you guys don't know how to start votes. Should've been done a long time ago.

Vote

Seiyū (for Japanese titles)

1. After the battle to keep the Seiyū page, I think we would be amiss to not use the word. I think using "seiyū" is fine as it provides a link and anyone not familiar with the word (or unable to figure it out from context) can simply click the link. This is standard on almost all WP pages which use technical or jargon terms: just make sure the word is linked so anyone unfamiliar with it can click and find out what it is. We aren't going for the lowest common denominator here. This is an encyclopedia, and even the most learned person is going to, from time to time, run across words with which they are unfamiliar. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. As long as it's linked I don't have major objections to it. It might not be my preferred style, but it's totally acceptable in my book. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Every instance of seiyū that I've seen has linked the first instance as it should be. Just an fyi. Kyaa the Catlord 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Kyaa the Catlord 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
2. As long as we ensure that the links are in place, this seems good. --Sopoforic 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Voiced by

1. Phorque 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC) - per my comments above.
2. TheFarix (Talk) 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) — This is my preferred method, but voice actor/actress is also acceptable. Seiyū should never be used in section and table headings or titles, but limited to the context of an article after it has been briefly explained on its first use (wiki linking shouldn't count).
3. TcDohl 11:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Beltz 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) - I also cast a secondary vote for "Voice by" without the D.
5. Kunzite 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) or we could always use CV... keep 'em on their toes..

Voice actor

1. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Voice actor/actress (actually find out and use appropriate - if I may express a POV, please don't choose this as it will complicate using infoboxes).

Comment Actor is not actually gender specific. The vast majority (I know, this is an uncited claim) simply use actor for both male and female. -- Ned Scott 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Voice(d) WHATEVER +optional (Seiyū)

1. -- Ned Scott 10:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC) less restrictive, but Seiyū alone is not enough, if one wishes to include it or not.
2. -- ~Kylu (u|t) 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Seiyū, as long as it includes a link telling the first-time anime looker-upper what a Seiyū actually is
3. -- Miss Ethereal 16:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC) When I was n00b (probably still am) learning what Seiyū meant was just an new interesting fact. Keep it.

This whole vote thing seems... slightly retarded. (also note, Polls are evil). The solution is very clear to me: if you feel you should use one way, then use it. If another person disagrees then use both (like the above example, or something similar). This is already done for many other Japanese terms. I feel very uneasy being forced to "choose" on such a trivial issue. -- Ned Scott 11:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right, we're looking for a convention - a guideline not a rule. It's like parlé from Pirates of the Carribean --Squilibob 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a straw poll to see if there is a consensus one way or the other, which currently doesn't look like there is. Part of the problem I have with the current poll is that there are too many options right now and we should limit the next straw poll to just two choices. We may even have to conduct an RfC to finally resolve this issue. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete ... er, I mean, yeah, a RfC would be a good idea. :) Problem is, you'll have a lot of people vote "Voiced by" simply because the majority of Wikipedians that would vote take the stance that English should be preferred over a Japanese term on the en.wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the archive. Maybe the voice actor template could be changed to make it list "Voiced by: SoandSo-san (seiyu) Mr.SoandSo (English)" Hell. I don't really care anymore. (Been up 21 hours. Need sleep badly.) Kyaa the Catlord 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should change one way or the other until a concensus is formed. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that this has become an unnecessarily emotive issue between two parties. At the same time, given the number of opinions, it would be difficult for any concensus of any sort to emerge, and we'd only have spoilt milk everywhere. Perhaps there are two possible courses of action:

1) Maintain the status quo, and bring this issue up for discussion again at a later date

2) Go for compromise. Have a template in which the words "voice actress/actor" or "voiced by" could also be a link to the seiyu page.

I personally would go for the compromise, as everyone sacrifices a bit for everyone else.

Karn-b 14:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

the words "voice actress/actor" or "voiced by" could also be a link to the seiyu page - Hey that's a good idea. No that's an excellent idea. --Squilibob 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, there's always {{anime voices}} which I made ages ago and nobody seems to like/want to improve. - Phorque 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I use it occassionally. I don't like how the text (Japanese) appears if you only use the Japanese name. Why not make it appear only when an optional english name is passed as a parameter to the template? --Squilibob 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anime names: Japanese or English?

I would propose that we set as a general guideline, that all anime titles follow the Japanese name in the event that there are differences between the English name and the Japanese name. At the same time, it would also be useful to have a redirect page created from an article containing the English name to the article for the Japanese name.

For example, Karin (manga) has a seperate English name called "chibi vampire." With this model, the "chibi vampire" article would link to the "Karin (manga)" article. Doing so would help to maintain naming accuracy, and yet provide the necessary information for those who may not know the original Japanese name.

Karn-b 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Current naming convention is to use the official English title as this is an English wiki, unless the foreign title is better known. For the case of Karin (manga), it is currently better known by it's Japanese title, so there is no need to move it at this point. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current resolution of having an automatic redirect from Chibi Vampire is an acceptable workaround. But I am biased in this case, there is nothing chibi about Karen. Maybe a touch loli, but she's no runt. Kyaa the Catlord 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but what I was trying to propose that this were introduced as part of the guidelines - that the Japanese title takes precidence (with the exception of existing articles - I don't think the Oh! My Goddess people would be happy to moving it back to Aa! Megami-sama) for the reasons above Karn-b 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As TheFarix said, there is already a guideline, in fact a policy (WP:NC), and it says that the English title takes precedence, except in some rare cases. Introducing a guideline that directly contradicts the WP:NC policy is not an option, unless the policy is changed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I must have missed that. I can see the argument in that case. Karn-b 15:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem right now is that the anime is more well known than the manga and it has yet to be brought over and had its name changed. Once the Karin anime also becomes Chibi Vampire though (if it does) then I say the article should be moved to Chibi Vampire with redirects towards it.--SeizureDog 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

An example infobox on the main page?

Could somebody include some kind of all-encompassing animanga infobox as an example on the front page? Maybe one from a series that is complete and has manga, anime and OVA boxes on it? I'll look later if somebody hasn't done it already. - Phorque 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Oh My Goddess!? Do you think it is necessary to include it on this project page instead of just linking to it? --Squilibob 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

On the main page? But example infoboxes are already given on Template:Infobox animanga.. why would we neeed one on the main page? -- Ned Scott 09:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Oh My Goddess! templates/infoboxes are a part of this project. They are just a bit specilised. You can use the templates for other anime too.--Cat out 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as there's an example of the Convention I thought it'd be a good example just so that people get a feel for the style etc. It also fills the page out a bit more I feel. Remove it if you think it's redundant. - Phorque 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that you wanted to use an all-encompassing infobox that covers most of the types but Midori no Hibi shows only two types. --Squilibob 13:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to clutter the main page with it? --Kunzite 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Both infoboxes look out of place where they are, I admit, and we have the Midori picture twice on the same page. We're not Midori no Hibi obsessed >_< --Squilibob 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, yes, the infoboxes suck. If they're removed could there at least be a good example (or link to an example) in the template documentation?

I got the idea of an example infobox from the computer and video games project's front page and it helped me initially on how to use the infobox, whereas I kinda needed to hunt for examples in order to do my first animanga infobox. - Phorque 10:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess! & List of Oh My Goddess episodes

I'd apriciate any assistance in maintaining new episodes, charatcers and other data. I am practialy all alone atm. --Cat out 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems you're doing a good job already! Besides adding new episodes as the anime progresses, are there any specific details or areas you need help on or want us to dig deep in, or don't have information on? Karn-b 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I dont have seiyu info for two of the characters. It is kept like a state secret for some strange reason. See Oh My Goddess! for the blank ones (Shoei and Yamano).

I am having difficulty translating new episodes. I currently am waiting for the fan-sub translation which delays the article up to 6 days. I would prefer the kanji to be translated as soon as the episode airs.

There is also a sentence or two explaining the next episode on the official page in japaneese, I'd like the article to have a translation of that.

--Cat out 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Shōhei Yoshida 吉田晶平 Naomi Shindō or Naomi Shindou 進藤尚美 is what ja wiki says.

No voice yet for the other. A new character?

Suggestion: Put the Ah! vs Oh! explanation in a trivia section or a note. It's a trivial aside that distracts from the main topic. --Kunzite 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ah! vs Oh! comparasion has been done in Oh My Goddess!, thanks for the ino on shoei. yes the character in question is new (2 days old :P) --Cat out 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm asking that we shove it to the bottom of the article. I also redid the template system and propsed a merger. See the main talk page. --Kunzite 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I've tried to add some cites to the Americanization article and cannot get them to display. Could someone help? I'd much appreciate it. Kyaa the Catlord 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. This new system is pretty cool; it makes citing a whole lot easier. - mako 09:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I first encountered it thanks to user:pfahlstrom and now that I've used it, I think its groovy. Just kinda... new. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden - article split

What is the general decorum when it comes to splitting an article? Do we hold a discussion first, or do people usually just do it? Rozen Maiden seems to be growing fact, and has shot past the 35 kb size. Karn-b 15:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about the size warning. Though, I do think the character descriptions could use some trimming first and that some of the story sections should be combined. If anything should be split off the article, it should first be the lists of media information. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never asked for consensus before when splitting an article, though putting the {{splitlong}} tag on the top of the page while you're planning the changes would probably be a good idea. --Squilibob 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to explain that names are in western order?

We usually don't explain in other places that names are listed in western order. Why do we need to explain this on character pages? --Kunzite 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So that the reader will know immediately what the person's given and surnames are, and not confuse the two. --Squilibob 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not usually used elsewhere on wikipedia (other than list pages) i.e. Chunichi Dragons or Ken-Ichiro Kobayashi. This is more of an issue for WP:MOS-JA --Kunzite 05:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well all I would like is consistency. If it isn't needed then pages that already have such a sentence should have it removed. The nihongo template works well to differenciate the names as long as there is kanji for the name as well. --Squilibob 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The only ones who need the explanation are the Japanophiles. Your average English reader probably doesn't realize that there are different naming conventions other then GN SN. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is that there is an unspoken precedent to the way article layout is presented. It is inconsistant just like the seiyu/voice actor thing and the kanji. Do we do it this way or that? There is a group of us adding lots of content but we're not all on the same wavelength and we'll be more productive if we all keep to an agreed style and the layout of all articles will be consistant for the readers and other editors. --Squilibob 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally go with WP:MOS-JA, with a mix of the Names of Modern Figures section and the Names of Fictional Characters section. Here's what I suggest:

• Main Article: EN Order (Kana/Kanji JA Order)
• Nested Article: EN Order (Kana/Kanji JA Order)

Its also important to note that Japanese does not contain spaces. They should not be used in between kanji in a name. If it is done this way, explinations become unnessecary. It would take some cleanup work, but it conforms to most of the nonfictional-based Japanese articles. --Tom 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See proposal on WP:MOS-JA entitled Using kanji with links to other articles. --Kunzite 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty common to insert a space between the kanji/kana of the family name and given name anyway, just to show which is which. It's not always completely apparent. For example, the seiyū Mari Maruta (まるたまり) had her name written as "Tamari Maru" in several episodes of Geneon's release of Sailor Moon. I mainly use the space because it's generally what I see in the Japanese seiyū articles and other English articles relating to anime. I do not have a problem with omitting the space, but I can see why it is used. (Revision: Of course, now I realize that problem could be easily handled with the pronunciation guide, debunking that argument. Ah... whatever, it does allow casual readers to tell which kanji is the family name and which is given upon first sight at least, I guess) --EmperorBrandon 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need nationality flags in the infobox?

Shouldn't one be able to tell the nationality of a production compnay from clicking on the link in the article? --Kunzite 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Need is a funny word. Rather, do the flags bother you in the infobox? It doesn't bother me much, except when some get cramped do to a lot of multinational releases. -- Ned Scott 22:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather if there was at least a pixel of space between lines, so I could differentiate between flags (like one mostly white flag from another; currently they just run together). But I say they're useful visuals. I'd rather not have to click on every link to read what nationality they are; the links names themselves can be ambiguous, too. So the flags are helpful in listing you all the nationalities in one compact place. --Crisu 22:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps only the original companies should be listed anyway. Is there a real need to list the companies that have licensed the anime/manga and dubbed into another language? You have to then play match-ups with the TV Broadcaster. Both the Studio and Broadcaster sections get bloated when all the dubs are listed. That information is better suited to an Adaptions section with any changes also mentioned, for example on the Ojamajo Doremi series page. --Squilibob 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that they should be used only for the country of origin. People tend to forget that countries other than Japan produce Anime/Manga. I have seen several from South Korea, and I'm sure there are others from other Asian countries. --Tom 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When it's suggested on a style guide, the need is implied. It seems to be just for page decoration that makes the tables longer than they have to be, especially for longer tables. If we were to include full lists of these for series like Sailor Moon (which has been translated and aired in many countries it would make the table way too unruly. Manga publishers North American Manga distributors have the Canadian and American flags. Inuyasha for example does this.

Also, the Japan flag is never rendered properly (no border so it blends intot the page and looks like a red dot--there's a seperate template for the flags which includes borders.) --Kunzite 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind a flag in the infobox. It adds color to the infobox and people will more easily locate tehir countries flag than its name. Also its shorter to use a 30px image than write the counties name. Some countries have a decently lenght name. Consider Congo. --Cat out 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cardcaptor navigation template

I was wondering what people felt about putting together some sort of navigation template for all the Cardcaptor Sakura articles? The clow card articles made me thing that such a thing might be beneficial, however I wanted to know what others felt, and I'm not good at creating tables anyway. Shiroi Hane 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the one found on Naruto? That would probably be a good idea. It seems like Cardcaptor Sakura has enough links to warrant it's own navigation template. Generally speaking then, IMO anime articles that have lots of links going on should probably have navigation templates (like Berserk). -- Miss Ethereal 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the one used for pokemon games Template:PokémonGames before someone took out the word Pokemon from each title on the left column. --Squilibob 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Naruto is a very good example that merges character and non-character articles into one nice template while keeping things to an good size. If you want coding help, make an outline and drop me a line on my talk page. I'll code it. --Kunzite 23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This idea rocks! I've been wanting to write a template for some time, but I'm glad to see extra support for it. So it has inspired me to play around with it, and here's Version 1.0. I wanted to try for something that isn't just long horizontal lists of character names (because those can sometimes be hard to parse), but this on I'm not really 100% happy with either. I was thinking maybe doing small categorization like "Kinomoto Family:", "Daidouji Family:", "Li Clan:".. but then what title should I use to categorize Yukito, Kaho, and Eriol? I might start completely over for v2.0. Unless someone has a nice idea brewing in their minds. ^_^ --Crisu 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The pink is a nice touch. I would change the article Voice actors of Cardcaptor Sakura to List of Cardcaptor Sakura characters and link the template to that and then make a separate template just for characters. --Squilibob 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But... keeping the template together avoids the need for two boxes at the bottom of some pages and lets people who come across a character page get to a non-character page very easily and vice versa. --Kunzite 01:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 2.0 ready: Template:Cardcaptor Sakura. So I guess I'm giving the "horizontal, separated by pipes" listing a try after all. I'm having a very problematic time deciding where Yukito should go. I've a feeling fans won't like me placing him so low on the list, but eh.. And I might also just move the left panel to the top and make it horizontal like the rest. In the meantime, the code is unfortunately much messier, but it was the only way I could get it to look like the way it does. There are nested tables and the like. I wish I could view the CSS file for class "toccolours"; then maybe I'd have an easier time manipulating things. --Crisu 03:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's really good. I like it. If it helps then here is the CSS style for toccolors:

.toccolours {
	border: 1px solid #aaa;
	background-color: #f9f9f9;
	padding: 5px;
	font-size: 95%;
}

It's in the main.css --Squilibob 05:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to have a link to Tsubasa: RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE included in the Sakura template?--Monocrat 03:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But it is already linked to several times in many CCS articles, so I doubt anyone will have problems finding the article. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anime fan "types"

one article this place could use would be a list of anime fan types, including hardcore otaku, fangirls, fanboys, Underground Anime Fans (see my profile), and such.(Vance Clarend 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Articles for these already exist: otaku, fanboy, Fan (aficionado) (which includes sections on both fanboys and fangirls) article. Things like "hardcore" and "underground" involve too much POV, so I don't think we'll be seeing those types of articles. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a valid edit?

Could somebody look at this edit and determine if it's a valid edit or vandalism? Thank you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More then likely, but the article is also listy and should be cleaned up. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I could help by implementing a table to compact the data better and shorten the scrolling length of the article, but I'll wait on the verification of that edit. My opinion is that it's vandalism, too, based on the mass amount of removals, but I'm not familiar enough with the series to confirm. --Crisu 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Legend of the Galactic Heroes

I created some articles relating to the series. I know little about it. Will someone care to expand them. --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD bait! If you can't provide more then that, then it's probably better that the articles not exist. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mangalist

I was under the impression that it had been deleted and removed from most articles. Someone has re-created it. Should we use it or not? Should we remove it from articles? It's rather large and unfriendly to me. --Kunzite 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is large and unfriendly. Could be redesigned so there isn't so much whitespace, but does anyone actually use this thing? --Squilibob 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading the old AFD from 2005.. Seems they suggested replacing it with an info box (which now exists.) I think I might re-TFD it. --Kunzite 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be more useful if we split it up. Have a "List of manga by English title" template (remove the Japanese listing from it and replace it with a single link to the Japanese list instead), a "List of manga-ka" template (but only use it on Manga-ka articles), and get rid of the "List of manga distributors" altogether (it's easier to just put that in the "See also" section).--SeizureDog 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes

I'd apriciate any help with this. I need someone to write 1,2 line episode synopsies... --Cat out 12:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice

I got a note that said that the participants were listed in a new way, and that if I don't do something, I will be deleated as a member. What do I do? I don't understand! --Hanachan01 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There actually is no "membership" to a WikiProject, and you won't be "deleted" or anything like that. Anyone can contribute to a WikiProject and be involved even without being listed as a participant. Listing one's self as a participant is more of a way to spread the word about the wikiproject, as well as showing how much interest there is in the project, showing that on your user page that you are interested in assisting in such articles, and so on.

But anyways, to be listed on the new list all you have to do is put one of two things on your user-page:

[[Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

OR

{{User WP Anime}} which will make a little userbox.

-- Ned Scott 06:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the original message we used wasn't very good in that it didn't get the message across clearly >_< --Squilibob 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I messed with the infobox

All the manga sections need to be updated for artists as I added that to the manga infobox. Because really, why wasn't that included in the first place? The light novel infobox had a section for artist but not the manga infobox? Pure stupidity.

The light novel box also might need a "serialized in" section, as many start out in print in magazines. I'm not aware as to if all (or at least most) light novels do this though. --SeizureDog 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm begining to see the reason why an artist section was previously not included. Sure, most manga do have the same person writing and drawing, but the exceptions are a bit bothersome (e.g. Lone Wolf and Cub; Sanctuary (manga); The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya). Listing only an author gives the impression that the artist is uncredited (that's what I was thinking in reading the boxes) and having the catagory be "Story and art by" will screw up the few that do have them seperate. Personally, I don't think it's too much of a redundancy to credit a person twice, and I think we should keep my seperate "Story by" and "Art by" catagories.--SeizureDog 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to hide that part of the infobox if it wasn't filled out. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But then that just leaves you with the writer, and an uncertainty as to if the artist is also the writer or if the artist has been left out.--SeizureDog 07:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When the template was first being worked on zippedmartin made this comment:

Del. |illustrator= Most of the time this is gonna be a pointless dupe of the author field, better to have X (story), Y (art) in the same field surely.

and as such that has been what we have done. I haven't reverted the change to the template because your point is valid, though I did make it an optional parameter as it displays incorrectly on every page that has it. In light of this, do you still believe we should have such a field? --Squilibob 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless we can come up with a good way to where "Story and art by" would be the default but with an option to seperate it into "Story by" and "Art by" for the exceptions. --SeizureDog 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This can actually be done, I think. The template can see if the same value is given for both options and then result in a 3rd possible outcome. I'll have to re-read the help pages to be sure on this and see where it is I saw how to do this. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted rather than leaving a bunch of 'story by's all over the place. If there's a technical solution (meta:ParserFunctions?), then great, but keep in mind that somebody may have to go through every template instance, fixing things up. - mako 06:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, until we can determine a better method I'm fine with the revert for now. I do think we need a better word than "authored" though. "Author" specifically applies to writing. We need a word that implies that the person was responsible for all of the artistic work, not just the words. A simple "by" would work of course, but it doesn't look right with the rest of the box. Also, I believe that we should replace the word "volumes" with "tankōbon" in the manga infobox. My reasoning there is simple: I've seen the term "volume" used interchangably with "chapter" or "part" in enough mangas to be confusing. "Tankōbon" is a less ambiguous term, with the downside of being less known. On that note, should we also include how many chapters are in a series? Not all tankōbon are equal, and the most recent chapters obviously aren't in tankōbon yet. I'm not saying we should make a new section for it, but perhaps start including it in the same box?

Example: No. of tankōbon 5 (26 chapters)

If we're able to start sticking in all of the chapters into everything, then the confusion over the term "volumes" is diminished, as "volumes" would imply the larger. But the downside to that is that it will be really difficult for us to keep up with the correct chapter count for ongoing series, since most of us aren't able to keep up with the Japanese manga magizines. Still can put chapter count for finished series easily enough though.--SeizureDog 23:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about wikilinking "volumes" to tankōbon? That way there's an explanation. - mako 07:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good middle ground. I didn't think about that. --SeizureDog 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name changes (Berserk (manga))

A few weeks ago, some Rambo admin moved Berserk to Berserk (manga) and redirected Berserk to Berserker. I immediately redirected it to berserk (manga) to prevent the massive destruction of links. On May 22nd, Someone redirected berserk to berserker and moved some of the wikilinks to berserk (manga). (note his reason listed was "Poper redirect. real life takes precedence over an cartoon" despite the fact it'd odd to call berserk a "cartoon" and that in real life only academia calls a berserker a "berserk") This caused someone else to list Berserk (manga) as a candidate for moving it back to Berserk, where it had been for well over a year. Please read my comments at the bottom of Talk:Berserk (manga) to see why I feel the article about the manga and anime series should be at Berserk. On another note, when this mess is over, I'd like to get the berserk-related articles cleaned up, as many of them were written/severely edited by someone with no command of the English language -Aknorals 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Berserk needs to be a disambiguation page. That is what they are for. --Squilibob 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really even warrents a disambiguation page. I've never heard anyone actually refer a berserker as a "berserk". I don't see why a simple "This article is about the manga Berserk, for the Scandinavian warrior see Berserker." wouldn't suffice.--SeizureDog 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough, and there is a disambiguation page anyway, so maybe it could be done similarly to Naruto with the anime/manga page at Berserk and a statement This article is about the manga and anime series. For other uses see Berserk (disambiguation). --Squilibob 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Though I will point out that Berserk (disambiguation) redirects to Berserker (disambiguation)--SeizureDog 03:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did that. Back in January 2005, in fact. (Someone has sense vandalised it, which I reverted) Though resently I have made it read: For other articles related to the word "berserk", such as berserkers see Berserker (disambiguation) to do those few people who might be looking for the norse dudes a one-click solution, not that they appear to think that is a senseable solution.... Also: if you feal that it's silly for an article about (a manga series, an anime series, 2 games, and (soon) the usage of music in said works, as well as the why the series is popular, etc) and spans multiple articles already to be a redirect to the wrong article, then please vote on Talk:Berserk (manga). I very much need your support. -Aknorals 10:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop needs to be split

way to much stuff on one page.--Dangerous-Boy 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the characters can have their own page for a start. --Squilibob 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

45 kb isn't that bad. We could keep it. The size policy really doesn't apply anymore. --Kunzite 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kunzite. --SeizureDog 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it different from other articles that have had the character section split into their own page? Saying that a guideline doesn't apply anymore, that's a bold statement. --Squilibob 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really bold... WP:SIZE says... "In the past, technical considerations because of some now rarely used browsers prompted a firm recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum size of precisely 32 KB, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature, and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened." (i.e. the 32 kb warning can be ignored now.) ..and.. "Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (see above for what to exclude): OVER 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" We're not quite there yet. After going back and reading these rules as I clearing some size things in the todo list, I was regretting that I had done some of the smaller splits. --Kunzite 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup you've made your point well. I still agree with Dangerous-Boy though.

Some parts of the Cowboy Bebop page had already been split off into their own articles and that characters section, in my opinion, has enough information for it to be its own article. --Squilibob 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As just one article or as one for each character?--SeizureDog 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:FICTION for guidance on this. One should only do seperate articles if the character articles are very large. --Kunzite 23:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While I also agree the size warning isn't a real reason to split an article, splitting character info to their own articles or to a character article isn't a bad idea. I believe the topics at hand can clearly warrant their own articles. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie always needs some cleaning up. Pics all over the place. way too messy. also, let us continue this discussion at Talk:Cowboy Bebop.--Dangerous-Boy 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)