Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

DVD/Blu-ray covers on episode lists

Being discussed at Village pump, looking for more opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'll have to go on an image removal spree at this rate. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

List of attendance figures at anime conventions, vote on whether attendance fees should be kept, request for comment

List of attendance figures at anime conventions I have completed it and added all possible varied references. I said i will post it again here after I am done for you to check and decide yourself itf it should be nominated for deletion. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments

Comments requested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attendance_figures_at_anime_conventions on whether attendance fees should be kept. Your valuable opinions welcomed --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black topic/interaction ban

Well, I've got a bit of news to report: per this decision at ANI, User:Lucia Black, who has stated that she will take another wikibreak due to family-related issues, has been topic-banned from editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and all articles related to this project, broadly construed; and is also subject to an interaction ban with User:ChrisGualtieri. Both of these sanctions are to be three months, unless they are appealed by the community before then. I am sorry that this has all come down to this, but as a mostly-uninvolved user, I just want to let everyone in the project know about this matter. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tail characters FLC

On an irrelevant note, I have nominated List of Fairy Tail characters for FLC. The nomination can be found here. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/News/Article alerts is really rather important for the project. I want to stick this somewhere visible, what's the best spot? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Something similar to the video games project's page. I have no idea how to implant it though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Transclude, of course, but where. I can implement it on any page, I just wonder if it should be on/supplement/replace the manual update list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD for List of manga artists

Of the three AFDs that User:Sinjanthu started but didn't complete, the one for List of manga artists seems to be the only one with the all the steps not completed yet. I don't have much time right now, but if someone could complete the AFD (i.e. steps 2 and 3 of WP:AFDHOW), that would be useful. Calathan (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Those AFDs are why I was concerned about the Article Alerts system. I check it every once in awhile to see how things are going, and noticed those three. Given the bad-faith demonstrated on one and the others seem to be against CFN, the malformed AFDs are only the tip of the problem. And I use twinkle for AFD so I don't know about fixing these manually right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The articles would not have been deleted and I did go about in finishing the List of anime conventions one to spare people seeing the ugly AfD box at the top. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

userficate an Article for Creation, Shizen no Teki-P

Hello, I would like to userficate this Article for Creation but I do not understand the procedure, even after reading WP:UFY. The reason I want to userficate the Article for Creation is because even though the notability of the person in the Article is growing, there are not enough sources at the moment and I am afraid that the Article for Creation may be deleted sooner than then. Please, could anyone guide me? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can do this for you, if you like. Hold on. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Page is now at User:Bumblezellio/Shizen no Teki-P. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your Cooperation. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Denno.ogg

image:Denno.ogg has been nominated for deletion on health grounds. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion arising at Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon#seizure_video_up_for_deletion to see if we need to include the video or not. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Portal template use

Currently the template {{Anime and manga}} makes a huge portal list that bloats out the articles they are on, and are really rather disruptive. First of all, it showcases among our worst articles in a prominent place. Links to List of manga publishers and Anime industry are horrible. It lists Ecchi as a major genre, right next to Harem and Hentai. Alphabetical order be damned, but that's a lot of perversion. Especially since Magical Girl and Mecha are interspliced between Yaoi and Yuri (distinctly pornographic in Japan). Our demographic coverage is terrible as well. The majority of the bios in the list are also majorly flawed, incomplete and potentially incorrect on numerous accounts. This is an artifact of an earlier era. It needs to be overhauled or removed until A&M's coverage is at least presentable before plastering it all over the place. Ideas, comments... and I've already heard "so fix it" before - this is a plan to do that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot of templates showcase articles that are underdeveloped, but that's not really a problem with the template itself. The navbox is there so people can easily find such articles. The only difference is that it's on the top of the article on the side instead of on the bottom like most navboxes. Calling that "disruptive" is kind of a stretch when the template is only transcluded on 130 articles, most of which are the biography articles. And removing it entirely would only make navigation harder for our readers. Though I agree that the "major figures" section may be better if it's condensed some since it seems a little too bloated at present.--十八 04:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It plays havoc with browsing and auto-scoring. Its coverage is poor, the articles are also poor and its a distraction on the majority of pages in which it is used. Changes are needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Browsing and autoscrolling? I see no problems with either, and besides, there are a bunch of similar sidebar navboxes. I don't find it a distraction. As for its coverage, well, that could probably be discussed, but like I said, the current state of the articles in the template is a non-issue in regards to the template itself and its use. Navboxes are to improve navigation for readers, not direct them to only the best and most-developed articles, or else the content in navboxes would be limited to GAs or FAs.--十八 05:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not auto-scrolling, but scoring. And I wasn't hoping for GA or FA, but I've never seen a portal used like that anywhere else on Wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. But what do you mean by auto-scoring? You might want to take a look at Category:"Part of a series on" templates to see that the navbox is common practice.--十八 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a rather trivial matter of scoring... but I'll deal with that when we go to published wikibook releases. Our current Wikibooks on anime are also bad... but at least those are picked. Just don't let "score" function count towards the criteria, as is commonly done, because the template results in stubs being rated higher than our GA and FAs. And for the nav-box I was hoping to do something like Template:Hinduism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If I understand it from your description, I would agree that any issue of scoring is completely trivial, certainly in regards to our readers who don't know such a system exists. There are plenty of templates that auto-hide their content like {{Hinduism}}, so if you want to do it that way, I don't really see any issue.--十八 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright - shall we move to reformatting the template. Specifically. The genres. I think having pages on the major genres as applies to anime is a good idea. Like Mecha and Magical Girl. I don't know why we need Yaoi, Yuri, Ecchi and Harem next to Hentai. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Because those genres uniquely apply to anime and manga, so it makes sense that they're there. All hentai has ecchi content, but not all ecchi series are considered hentai. Some yaoi and yuri series may be hentai, but many of them aren't. Harem is its own separate thing, even if many of them may have ecchi content. Need I remind you that the navbox is meant to facilitate navigation for the reader. Don't make it harder for them by removing articles that should be in the navbox.--十八 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So shall we include other genres then? Do we define them by period for Historical ones? If you want to expand beyond the typical genre listings to a&m specifics - let's push that. And fyi... I thought ecchi was decided not to be a "genre" anymore after the deletion matter. Yaoi and Yuri alone have definition issues - unless you specify the meaning they are natively pornographic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there other genres that are specific to anime and manga? I can't think of any at this time. There are things like Real Robot, but that's a subset of Mecha. I personally don't think ecchi is a genre, or should be used as such, but it's still a concept found in anime and manga, and thus should be kept in some capacity. Yaoi and yuri are genres that should be kept regardless of their definition issues.--十八 00:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There are some, but these are more like "Games" like Yugioh, Duel Masters.. etc. It'd be easier to just break them into Sci-fi, Romance and other major genres and simply lay out their themes and the historic works. You could say Shoujo and Shounen are "genres", but they are really (target) demographics. Perhaps those are too hard to tackle for right now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD of List of attendance figures at anime conventions

There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions (2nd nomination) that may be of interest to the project.--十八 00:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles

Someone might want to add Grand Guignol Orchestra and Maria-sama ga Miteru to the WikiProject page for passing a Good Article review. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

JL Bot will get them added as well without having to reformat the page by hand, but the manually entered "news section" could be updated - not every update is given anyways though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize until now that the news section was separate. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, could be nice if it was automated or replaced with the projects external assessment box. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Season list titles

There is a doubt I have about the naming conventions of episodes list. Should they be treated as list such as List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 1) or Pokemon (season 2). I wonder it because all the sublists of List of Bleach episodes are being renamed without a prediscussion.Tintor2 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't settled last time it was brought up here. Try the Village Pump. As far as I know, unless there is a lot of content like Lost (season 2), it should be lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The format is the latter. However, Pokémon is weird because each season has a unique subtitle that it is known by rather than a numerical identifier. The TV project formats it as "Show (season #)" instead of "List of Show episodes (season #)".—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bleach colour

Any feedback is appreciated on template talk:bleach. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga)

Is there any reason why all three of these pages are separate? The anime should ideally be the main non-disambiguated article as it came first. The manga page is awfully short. And the current "main" article is just a list of every piece of Evangelion media, many of which aren't that notable. It appears that the anime article was split off in 2007 and that began the sprawling mess that the non-disambiguated page is today.

I think we need to coordinate a cleanup of these pages, that involves some level of the following:

• Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) becomes the primary topic located at "Neon Genesis Evangelion"
• Massive list of video games currently on Neon Genesis Evangelion gets made into "List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games" article
• Release information currently at Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) gets moved to the chapter list; differences between character interpretations goes to the character list or character articles; "(manga)" article deprecated into expanded chapter list
• The spin-off chapter lists at List of Neon Genesis Evangelion chapters get their own list articles or alternately are merged with their main articles

This is all I can think of for the time being. Any suggestions?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would have absolutely no objections to the manga being deprecated into the list of chapters or merged and I agree that the anime article should be the main article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The articles have problems, but they should be fixed instead of shuffling them around. For something like NGE the readers need context. This should be similar to how Halo (series) is laid out. Also note that Halo 1 is not the "main page" nor is the Halo Legends anime. NGE should follow this system because it best provides the overview of the content while not getting into nitty-gritty details. Ideally, a reader who comes to the page should understand what it is, what is in it and why it matters. Considering the alternate retellings, sequels, tributes, spinoffs and other materials.... I simply cannot advise making NGE go to the anime. As for the multiple mangas in existance... I do not know how to best resolve that situation. Keep status quo until the content problems on the main page can be addressed properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you Chris. What's good for Halo is not going to be good for Evangelion. With Halo you have a game and its sequels, so I expect the need for a page to cover the series as a whole. The way the articles are structured also gives this credence. Due to the fact that Halo is at Halo: Combat Evolved, and it's been followed by Halo 2, Halo 3, etc., a central Halo (series) page is warranted.

For Evangelion, you have the original anime and original manga, which have similar storylines and aside from some minor differences in character interpretation neither need to have articles separate from each other other than their lists of chapters, episodes, and characters (where differences in interpretation can be discussed rather than the article on the media). This page would be our primary topic at Neon Genesis Evangelion, as it had been in 2007. The anime is also much more popular than the manga version, pushing it towards primary topic status. Now, after that you have the Death & Rebirth duology, The End of Evangelion duology (these four films are intrinsically related), and the Rebuild of Evangelion quadrilogy. These pages would exist as they are, but they would be mentioned in some form on this new "Neon Genesis Evangelion". Then there are all of the spin-off manga, the video games (nearly all of which are unrelated to each other), and the music. None of this requires a separate overview page such as the one that currently exists. As things are now it is a rarity amongst anime and manga pages and we should not elevate it in its current state (even if we fix things up) as an archetypal standard to turn other pages into.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Just an overview:

1. I disagree with the first. It is always odd to me that this project treats the manga (or randomly, the anime) as the WP:PTOPIC, when you have no idea in actuality whether the anime or the manga is the primary topic (or even the video games where prevalent!). Neon Genesis Evangelion, as with the vast majority of video game series-related articles, should remain as the "series" article and per WP:SUMMARY should summarize the other articles.
2. Agreed. That list needs to be either at a list of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games or at a Neon Genesis Evangelion (video game series). I think I might prefer the latter of the two, but I don't feel strongly.
3. Agreed on release information.
4. Iffy on this, but I probably agree.
5. I would tend to disagree with making them their own list articles. I would say that we probably shouldn't merge them with their main articles, but I don't feel strongly.

--Izno (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Evangelion TV anime was the original work of fiction (even though the manga began serialization first) so it would probably be the primary topic. The way the manga page is set up and how much detail the anime page has in comparison to the current central page really sells that point. As I mention to ChrisGualtieri above, there may not actually be a need to have separate articles on the anime and the manga (no other page is set up this way). And it does not appear that the video games are inherently related to each other (outside of a few direct sequels) to be a "video game series", so a "List of..." page works better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"The original work" doesn't hold much water with me. Would you place SimCity (1989 video game) at SimCity, simply because it came first? Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope at Star Wars, because it came first? I can point to what are likely hundreds of other franchises with similar circumstances. Films, books, and video games get it right when they say "there should be an overarching topic article from which we can reach most if not all of the topical sub-articles", not least because what is recognizable to person A will vary from what is recognizable to person B as being the primary topic. This project on the other hand just makes me want to facepalm on the point. :)

Another reason they should be separate is that we can then describe what makes them different without losing a reader's focus. Consider the example you bring up below of Fullmetal Alchemist. In it, we have what is essentially one paragraph for the entirety of the plot of the manga and second anime series and another paragraph for the first anime. Does that do either of them justice? Hardly. This is especially true for the plot of the first anime, which basically says "see manga/second anime description". The reception (and article in general) is disjointed also, due largely to the fact that it attempts to cover 4 separate topics all in the same space. It simply doesn't make sense. (Consider, on a side note, that separating out more articles could lead more easily to an increased number of good and featured articles.)

As for "no other page is set up this way", that is either due to your extensive activity here or to those who came before you (likely a combination of the two). Not to place blame of any sort, but to attempt to use it as a legitimate reason instead of to represent it as what occurred due to what is probably and largely your own influence is somewhat disingenuous.

As for the video games, sure, I'm agreeable to that reasoning. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparing a video game franchise or a currently known trilogy of films to an anime and manga does not really work. There are many games related to SimCity/The Sims franchise. That deserves a central page to discuss everything.

Per WP:PLOT we should not be focusing too much attention in the article to the plot anyway. That information can go off to character lists and episode lists and chapter lists rather than unnecessarily bog down the article.

And I am most certainly not the person to blame for the current state of anime and manga articles following this archetype: main article about both the manga and anime together, character list, chapter list, episode list, separate pages for unique retellings (ex. Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, Saint Seiya Omega), separate pages for films, separate pages for video games, etc. It seems to work fine. Everything just seems to boil down to the fact that you and Chris and Gwern want to classify it as a franchise first and foremost. Is the franchise even the primary topic when it is the anime that started everything? The manga doesn't really count because it was only created as a result of the announcement of the anime.

Every entry of Gundam is different. Every entry of Super Mario is different. Every entry of Power Rangers (for the most part) is different. Those require franchise pages or central pages or whatever. With Evangelion, you always have Shinji Ikari piloting a giant robot to fight the Angels and possibly decide to end all life as we know it. Everything derives its existence from the anime. Therefore it should be the primary topic rather than a glorified disambiguation page that exists now.

My proposal to restructure the pages is simple and seems effective.

• Moving all useful content just about the anime from the current "franchise" page to the current anime page. After all, nearly everything on the franchise page is a derivative of the anime as it focuses on the anime and the theatrical releases more than anything else.
• Make a List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games page
• Make the current "(anime)" page the new primary topic.
• Eliminate the short "(manga)" page by moving any real world context information to the list of chapters and any information on alternate character interpretations to the character articles or character list.

The only thing that seems to stand in the way of this concept is the unwavering praise of a "franchise page" for something that is not a franchise in the same sense that Gundam, Pokemon, and Digimon are franchises.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Neon Genesis Evangelion page, I think the best thing would be to move the development and film info to the TV series page and rename the franchise page to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. Video games don't need their own list. --Mika1h (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Ryulong's proposal. 6 years ago, we did the split for what were and remain excellent reasons:

1. We made the page Neon Genesis Evangelion the overall franchise page because the term 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' no longer refers exclusively and overwhelmingly to the original NGE TV series, no more than does 'Gundam' refer to the original 1970s anime Mobile Suit Gundam; it refers to the franchise and anything in it, and I would point out that this embraces 17 years of spinoffs, movies, the best-selling manga, and most recently the extremely successful Rebuild movies which I believe still hold the records for DVD/BD preorders in Japan. All of these are 'Neon Genesis Evangelion': a franchise page is by necessity a 'sprawling mess' because that's what a franchise is, it is not a single unified work; if the page is a 'rarity', perhaps that is because such large franchises are not as common as individual works... Look at the whatlinkshere for that page, how many of the linkers mean 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' in the narrow sense of exclusively the TV series rather than a broader sense?
2. I dispute that the video game list is 'massive'. How long, exactly, ought they be? But this is not an important point, so we can leave it for later.
3. Deleting the NGE manga article is an absurd suggestion. Sadamoto's manga came out before the TV series, was published over 3 decades, has little known input from anyone else & is his vision, has a somewhat different plot and completely different ending (Ryulong, have you even read the ending? You must not have, or otherwise I cannot see how you can write it off as being nothing but "some minor differences in character interpretation"), and has such high sale figures that no one would question its Notability in any other context. A list of chapters is not an article. If the article is short, well, perhaps that is a symptom of the overall morbundity of this Wikiproject and the remaining editors' sad focus on deleting stuff and rearranging deck chairs (and also that, IMO, the manga simply isn't very good). Ryulong claims "no other page is set up this way"; besides the irrelevancy of this (how many manga adaptation ever sell as much as the Eva one?), I strongly doubt he has ever looked for any articles which might falsify his claim.

If we are foolish enough to implement Ryulong's suggestions, no doubt in another 6 years we will find ourselves in the same place - "all the incoming links to 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' are about the franchise and not the original TV series a quarter of a century ago, maybe we should have a central franchise page to cover all the works"; it would not be the first time the wheel has turned. --Gwern (contribs) 23:15 3 August 2013 (GMT)

You can go around offending everyone in this, quote: "defunct" WikiProject, if you do how will we ever get work done? Seriously. KirtZJ^Talk 00:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Gwern, what worked 6 years ago is not working today. This "franchise" approach just produces several unnecessary articles when fewer would suffice.

• The video game list and the list of albums that I've recently converted out from the table form take up way too much space. There's already Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Why does the franchise page have to list each and every album and single, again?
• Why don't we have an article for "Tamashii no Refrain"? It's certified double platinum three times over and was a #3 hit.
• The 1995 anime is first and foremost. It is the basis for everything that comes after (and for whatever reason with the manga before). Why isn't it the main page? Where is this discussion that produced this change?
• The differences between the manga and the anime do not facilitate setting them up as independent entities considering their contemporaneity. For example, Fullmetal Alchemist's manga and the original anime went off on completely different paths and we don't have separate pages set up for them outside of lists. If it's the same characters doing mostly the exact same things and being published/broadcast at the same time, it does not make sense to split it up as we've done. It makes sense to provide new pages for films or vastly alternate interpretations that come years later. It may be of some use to discuss the differences between the anime and manga somewhere. But having an article less than a quarter of the size than the other just to point this out doesn't work.
• Gundam, outside of the extended continuity of the Universal Century, is only unified by Tomino and humanoid robots wielding laser weapons and having that weird forehead crown thing. It makes sense for that to be considered a franchise. But I don't think everything that universally includes Shinji, Rei, Asuka, Gendo, Misato, Kaworu, et al. interacting in almost identical stories (ignoring the weird shojo mangas and dating games) is a franchise. I think it's easier for a project to work with better written and fewer in number articles than splitting all of this information between more and more pages based on arbitrary decisions of canonicity or plotline differences.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Gwern has provided extremely good rationale and you attempt to dismiss it by saying that articles do not exist (yet) as evidence that currently existing pages should not exist as well? That's a terrible and self-realizing rationale if it is ever taken up. A&M has huge flaws in its organization and operation. The MOS issue was an attempt to supersede policy; and without that the pillar of this deletion-centric and marginalization has begun to crumble. Excuse me if I bring up Dragon Ball Z, the anime of the 1990s and 2000s which is a major international success. We spared a mere three paragraphs for years because of that MOS, the merge (or rather faux deletion) would never have passed at AFD and was done on the back of a handful of editors and enforced for years on a pretext incompatible with the whole of Wikipedia. Even recreation was an unnecessarily painful process which saw over a dozen editors, several 3Os and over 60 sources on the prototype which is still only half complete. It is terrible that A&M has become like this. It is self-defeating, many editors have stop contributing simply because their additions are not only unwelcome, and may be responded with even greater removals. I will not go on a further tangent into this matter... but there are more than a handful of examples which come to mind. Neon Genesis Evangelion is a major work, a complex work that needs context for readers - its not as bad as some series which use the same name multiple times for different works, but first time readers and those new to the subject need the context and clarity afforded only by the topic level article as covered in policies and guidelines. There are numerous, strong reasons for opposing these actions. The strongest objection I have is the desire of Ryulong to replacing the current page to the anime. Given the structure currently in place, such an act would be devastating and feedback (if activated) would plummet. It would destroy a navigational and broad article to uphold this "first media first" and even that is an exception of sorts. I don't want to get into another bout over this, but I am putting my strongest opposition I can to this action because it reduces scope and furthers the deletion and minimization of the project without just reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have made that non sequitur. However, there is nothing wrong with the way the vast majority of the articles within this project's scope are set up. The state of the DBZ article I will admit was problematic. However, this does not hold for Evangelion. The way this "topic level article" or "franchise article" or whatever you want to call it is currently set up is bad. It is practically about the anime, so why not just cut out the middle man and make the article on the anime the primary topic? The various navigational aspects of the "topic level article" can be incorporated into a media section like on every other anime and manga page. The heavy symbolism analysis of the anime article can go off to its own page. Again, the only opposition I am sensing is this praise of a "franchise" page rather than providing our readers with what they are actually planning on finding when they search for "Neon Genesis Evangelion", which in my opinion is the anime first, and maybe the current Rebuild quadrilogy second.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion what "readers want" is just an opinion, but does nothing to make a logical analysis of our target audience's need for a summary of the whole; not a indepth article on the anime. I also will note that NGE anime redirects to the anime just fine, because you specify. For uninformed readers, the subject is unapproachable from just the anime aspect. Just as it is unapproachable from a video game or the movie aspect. We don't even get into the details about remake and sequels in the Rebuilds. The article is not perfect, so what, fix it, don't delete it. And to be clear, that is exactly what would happen. And simply put, that will throw off internal links and outside links as mentioned before. The whole should be described given the diverse media. Looking through the history a lot of content is deleted and then this "let's merge" rationale comes up. This is a real problem. And given the study conducted in this area, it is definitely problematic. I am going to stop now before I bring up the current problem between you and I. Our views on this subject are incompatible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then clearly we need someone to find some page view statistics. And there is absolutely no reason not to have both an article on the anime and including links in that article to related media. That's how every single article group but this one is set up. I don't see how going to the anime page first is "unapproachable" when that's the original form that this thing existed in. If the article is that "unapproachable" then that's a problem with the way the article is written as it stands and not a reason that it should not be the primary topic page. And why should meta worries prevent this? The Interwiki linking system is much better now. And I bet that there are a good portion of links to Neon Genesis Evangelion when Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) is intended because people assume what I have proposed is the way things are set up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't stating a "meta problem", but a logical appeal to the readers needs. We must consider their needs and present something that they can understand without diving into a specific section. Your version assumes prior knowledge and understanding, advancing the anime in place of the topic itself. In topics like NGE, branching should be like a tree, let's not start with the first branch when we need the trunk. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

By "meta" I mean complaints about linking. And the trunk should be the anime because it was first. If necessary we can provide "branches" to the more indepth aspects of the anime that make the current page unsuitable as a primary topic according to you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, you still cannot provide good reasoning on why this should be done. It will only cause more confusion for readers who are already unfamiliar with the subject. As things become more complex and esoteric you need such pages to make sense of numerous things bearing the same name or type; it is not to be the "first" work. You support this "first work" mentality even when numerous works have the exact same name; I do not think you understand the needs of the uninformed. You seem to care only about the number of pages; which is not a concern on Wikipedia. Such artificial limitation causes only more confusion and destroys perfectly valid information in the pursuit of minimizing complex things. Comprehension suffers as a result of such actions. Editors on here want to delete, delete, merge and delete some more under the guise of streamlining content do not seem to understand the value of what they remove. Coverage should be broad to specific. The "first work" focus is specific to specific. That's the problem with it. I made such a case before about when such pages can be justified, at 10 or more titles or exceedingly complex ones. This project has merged GA levels to be less than a mere sentence under this rationale; the project suffers because of such actions. I've made a concentrated effort to improve coverage, sources and get multiple articles to GA. I can't even add mere details because of this mentality. There is no nurturing in this project and in some areas more than 30% of additions are reverted out; even when they are good faith edits. A&M's editor pool has shrunk to just a handful because of such tactics - if anyone wants a resurgence and growth, all of us need to embrace one another as colleagues and try to get new editors to stay and contribute. End the conflict, only add and improve coverage, and perhaps the tide will change. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, what does any of that matter? Are they truly good article candidates or are they bloated fan pages under the guise of encyclopedia articles? There are two entire paragraphs on Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), one under themes and another under allusions, that are unreferenced. And this focus on there being a franchise is flawed.

Gundam is a franchise. There have been multiple television series and films over the past ~40 years that are unrelated to each other. Digimon is a franchise. There have been multiple television shows and video games over the past...~15? years that are unrelated to each other. Neon Genesis Evangelion is not a franchise like these. Every single entry is a retelling of Shinji Ikari getting in a robot that may or may not contain his mother's soul to fight extraterrestrial monsters known as Angels. This is the plot of the anime, which was the original work of fiction (and therefore the plot of the Death, Rebirth, and End of Evangelion films as they are just director's cuts of the TV series). This is the plot of the manga. This is the plot of the Rebuild quadrilogy, although arguably it's just another derivation of the anime. The only outliers are the Girlfriend of Steel games and manga, the Petit Eva manga, and the Campus Apocalypse manga. The "Rising Project" games seem to fit within the storyline to some extent and the other entries are fighting games based on the TV show or the movies.

This shows that the anime is the most important work of fiction amongst the group. It already has the most coverage. The current "topic level page" does not work. Right now it's just serving as a place to list things that don't have their own article yet or never will get their own article. The list of video games deserve their own list page. The discography already has its own page so there's no reason to duplicate it, despite Gwern's revert.

To deal with the current page, it's more like a merge back with the anime page. Everything listed under Neon Genesis Evangelion#Media would go on Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) as "Media" although we cut out the lengthy lists. The "Films" section would also go under this "Media" section.

The only thing preventing this is your demand that we have franchise pages when with anime and manga articles they're mostly unnecessary except in rare instances like Gundam or PreCure or Yugioh or Digimon where there are multiple entities with similar titles that are unrelated to each other plotwise.

And I've found a page view statistics tool. In the past 90 days, Neon Genesis Evangelion was visisted 373458 times. In that same time period, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) was viewed 317415 times (also, Evangelion was viewed 31969 times). I think this shows that 84% of people want to look up the anime rather than this franchise page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you would check other articles like Rebuild which gets 181k views as well you would see that readers ALSO want that page. Many FA articles get less than this, some get around 200 views a day, but it doesn't mean that the old house articles should be split because Vladimir gets 10000 views a day while his sons get 200 views a day. Your own argument here is damning for your opposition to the long-standing Ghost in the Shell article. Your "i don't like franchise pages" is showing here - and PreCure is not even half as bad, but you seem to be maintaining and far more knowledgeable about PreCure matters than NGE. The deletion would damage comprehension and that is why I am against it. How about we fix it to make it work better rather than purging it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

But "Rebuild of Evangelion" isn't in a dab link at the top of the article. It still seems that people typing in "Neon Genesis Evangelion" mostly end up at "Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)".

The PreCure fandom and pages are awful. I'm only preventing people from posting rumors on them all the time. I haven't watched a single episode.

And I do not like all franchise pages. I just see no utility for having them for Evangelion and GITS considering the fiction and current level of coverage. Both of them started out in a particular form that they're best known for, and for some reason that form is not or was not the main article of either subject.

Again, I see no need to have a franchise page for these things when everything that comprises the franchise page can be merged into the more notable or at least original version of the media. With Ghost in the Shell, that meant getting rid of the content forked manga page and turning the main page into a manga page that also briefly details the various adaptations per WP:SS. For Evangelion, I think everything under "Media" and "Films" from what is currently the franchise page should be trimmed and incorporated into the current anime page which is then made into our primary topic instead of the bare bones "franchise" page as it stands now. You cannot possibly tell me that the anime (which includes all of the animated films, as they are all just adaptations of the 26 episode anime) is not the most notable version of Evangelion and therefore is not the primary topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"In the past 90 days, Neon Genesis Evangelion was visisted 373458 times. In that same time period, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) was viewed 317415 times (also, Evangelion was viewed 31969 times). I think this shows that 84% of people want to look up the anime rather than this franchise page." Your logic is flawed or your understanding of statistics is flawed (or you are trying to spin the facts). These groups of people could be mutually exclusive: that is, every single one who visits the general page could choose not to visit the anime page, and every single one who visits the anime page could choose not to visit the general page. Some could even visit both, going from one to the other. Please don't maul statistics in this fashion. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then it shows that the anime page receives 84% of the number of visitors that the franchise page has, which is still an extremely high number for a disambiguated title. Statistically, there should be some sort of correlation between these two numbers. The bar graphs matching up pretty closely seems to fit this idea. Heck, the 30 day view shows more visits to (anime) than the franchise page. If I had time I could do an R-squared regression on all the data to show a better correlation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of Neon Genesis Evangelion as it is now. It's not so much an article about the so-called franchise, but rather some duplicate content about the TV anime as an excuse to have a list of various promotional material/commercial derivatives of the original anime as a stand-alone. It doesn't even contain any hint of secondary coverage about the franchise as a whole and is thus barred from reaching GA status (and it could also fail WP:GNG)...and that is the first thing readers will see when typing "Neon Genesis Evangelion" ? No way. As Ryulong said, in the past 90 days, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) was viewed 317415 times. Now, let's look at stats for the other articles linked in Neon Genesis Evangelion, over the same period: Rebuild of Evangelion was viewed 179785 times, The End of Evangelion 93223 times, Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) 24563 times, List of Neon Genesis Evangelion chapters 18538 times, Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion 25100 times, Neon Genesis Evangelion 2 (a game not too old on a popular system) 5014 times...Clearly, readers are more interested in the TV anime than in any other aspect of the so-called "franchise" (even Rebuild, an on-going and very popular movies series, doesn't reach that high), and the franchise article gets so many views only because it's the first one readers will access.
I agree we should move all the anime content from the franchise page to the anime page, and move Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to Neon Genesis Evangelion. The Sadamoto manga doesn't even pass WP:BK as it is and could also probably be covered entirely in the main article. The list of goodies and derivatives should also be moved there, after having been drastically reduced to the most important items (a "list of Evangelion media" is too indiscriminate to be a stand-alone).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The manga doesn't meet BK or by extension N? You are kidding right? The systematic bias is indeed strong in this project considering the scope of this group and all. The systematic destruction and removal of content has to stop. That aspect of "MOS" is dead and removed, it never should have even existed. I take particular offense when a concerted effort to undermine coverage comes from a group's own members, but I it seems that some priorities and policies are being waved here for this self mutilating aspect of the project. Simply put, it seems that more than a handful of members are not able to follow simple BEFORE or other methods prior to declaring out of process deletion rationales. This must end. I will take charge on NGE - in what is definitely stretching myself thin, but because only because no one else seems willing to do the work in fixing it. I want collaboration and growth for this project, its stagnant and decaying - it is time to revitalize and strengthen our coverage in the areas. After all, Wikipedia is used by the TV networks which air the anime to inform readers about the content... Even Anime Current does this. Our coverage may be incomplete or a bit broken in some areas, but Wikipedia is essential for the community of fans and uninformed readers. Give me a week to fix the NGE main page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel raises a good point about the original manga. As it stands, it does not meet notability on its own. It should be covered as an aspect of the Evangelion TV series, much like everything else. Despite your vast changes to the current franchise page, it still serves no useful purpose. The most notable entry in this whole franchise is the anime. It should be the primary topic. Everything on what is now the "franchise page" should be summarized in a media section in the article on the anime, as is done for every other anime and manga page. There are very rarely instances where one entry within an anime or manga is notable on its own. This is not the case for Evangelion, particularly because the plotlines are identical. It's just that the nitty gritty details are not and we do not need to dedicate so many articles to expound on this information. This grand picture that you keep proposing Chris does not work and constantly claiming that it is this project's fault (Gwern did the same) is not really convincing anyone of anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Section break

He does not raise a good point because it is a classic strawman argument. Also, the fact you are advancing that the manga is not notable to claim a merge is really getting on my nerves now. It meets N - that is final. You are not deleting it without AFD and you are not merging it without one either. Gwern's assessment seems to be spot on and you resort to launching attacks at editors as means of advancing your position. I see a complete lack of "improvement" desire and the fact you do not want to put the work in to make something meaningful when its "pretty good" if you just delete it instead. Stop marginalizing and removing content at every turn. If I go any further I'll be discussing your behavior; which seems to be the actual problem here. I much rather not have this go to formal mediation, but keep this up and the whole bucket of issues will be going there. Your "no franchises" matter is so misinformed that even lengthy lectures on the matter fall on deaf ears. I'll not repeat myself ad infinitum either. You are not going to sway my opinion and you will not be swayed. Try collaborating and improving coverage instead of reverting, deleting and merging everything out of existence. You have announced your disdain for A&M fandoms, topics and their impact and that is a profoundly negative attitude. Gwern is 100% right about this project, its clear as day to a previous onlooker like myself. I dreaded this project because it was so backwards, drama-filled and negative. The result is that even thousands of good sources go unadded even when they are handed to you! And when content is added it is more likely to be removed. Are you kidding me? That is a pretty clear sign that any organization has a clear problem with its organizers. Fixing A&M is like fixing Enwiki; the medicine required may be bitter, but it requires acknowledging the real problems with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see this "strawman argument". The manga is not notable unto itself such that it requires its own article, particularly the way the article is currently set up. It is an improvement to get rid of a shoddily formatted "franchise page" when it is inherently unnecessary for Evangelion. And I am not anti franchise page. It has its utility in other topic areas, but Evangelion is not one of them. And you will refuse at all points to accept this when others seem to agree. So fine. I'm sending the franchise page to AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you really look at this it's just you, Gwern, and Izno going "no no no absolutely not", while Folken, Sjones23, and KirtZJ (as far as I can tell) agree that my proposal works, but seeing as you demand it I will get the wider Wikipedia community to discuss this as you will oppose it at all stages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It has dawned on me that you meant the manga when you reference AFD. No matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion has been started.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure an AfD is the right process needed to sort this out, as this is an issue of structure, it can surely be fixed merely with content transfers and redirects. If you want a wider debate you should probably consider a Request for Comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To clear a few things up, and in response to every point ChrisGualtieri could raise:

1. I'm not saying the Sadamoto manga is not notable. Maybe it is, but the current article, doesn't pass neither BK or GNG, mere news reports and sales charts aren't significant enough coverage for that. We need proper reviews and commentaries. If these cannot be found and the manga article cannot differenciate enough from the TV anime article, then it's probably better to deal with the manga as a section of the anime article.
2. Wikipedia is written for its readers (mostly the uninformed ones), not for its own editors coming from a fan community. It's clear that readers looking up "Evangelion" on WP actually mean the TV anime. The franchise article is just confusing newcomers, making the TV anime as main is the more logical, reader-friendly approach.
3. No content will disappear. Most content about TV anime in the franchise article is duplicate. Most "franchise" aspects can be dealt directly within the TV anime article (and a well-written lead can easily clear any confusion between the TV anime, the original films, the Rebuild films, the Sadamoto manga and the other manga. Another article isn't needed).
4. A list of all Evangelion goodies ever released is not going to improve the reader's deep understanding of the TV anime. This should not be the first thing a reader sees when looking up "Evangelion", instead of proper TV anime coverage. The more commercial aspects of Evangelion can easily be covered in the main TV anime article (keeping in mind that because it has "Evangelion" slapped on its cover does not mean that every goodie every released is worthy of extensive coverage on WP. This does not need a full article).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the manga, it is notable even as it stands now. Recorded top seller, very high sales, numerous sources about the manga make it meet GNG as well. WP:NRVE says that references nearly need to exist - their immediate citation is not required. There is nothing wrong with having a separate article on the manga; readers can find the anime easily, but what about those who want proper coverage of the notable manga? Simply put, if it meets N and GNG it can have its own article on Wikipedia. Whether or not more readers access that information is not a valid reason to delete it, that is a very weak strawman argument because you are attacking its inclusion on the presumption of views - many FAs receive far less views than it, but its N/GNG and not views which is the requirement for inclusion. If you make the article about the anime, than the other topics are skewed into obscurity and become extremely limited and incapable of providing even educated readers a proper overview of the media. Ryulong is enforcing this on the Ghost in the Shell page. So, quite frankly, it does not work. The actions there show how flawed that experiment was. Your last point is also misinformed, you forget that it is the uninformed we cater to, making the original about the anime goes against that by presenting something in detail and ramming the other titles in rapid fire succession with absolutely no care. It will bloat the anime article and reduce comprehension, both are bad things. Bloating the anime falls under WP:OFFTOPIC. Information on works without their own article will be purged, like the live-action movie and the amusement park, related music, mangas and video games will also be limited to essentially nothing. Simply put, it needs a full topic dedicated to an overview, and this would also be the place to put themes and go through the terms of the work in a logical manner. Replacing the deleted "glossary" and tying up the setting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the AFD for now as people are misconstruing the purpose on both sides. I should have stopped when I realized you meant the manga page. This needs to be turned into an RFC but fuck if I know how to do that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The formating at Ghost in the Shell does work because it's the formatting that works on every other anime and manga article on the English Wikipedia. The article without the disambiguation serves as both a page on the subject and its "franchise". You are the only one who thinks the format does not work because you have made yourself out to be a self-styled expert on Ghost in the Shell and in your mind you think everything needs to be covered more thoroughly such that many more aspects of the subject get their own articles.

The article on the Evangelion manga should be merged with its chapter list (and the spin-off manga chapter lists either receiving their own chapter lists or merging with their own articles) as there's nothing there that adds anything new. The article on the anime should be the primary topic because it is the primary topic. You have just as many people going to the anime article as they do to the franchise one which is only because the franchise one is treated as the primary topic. And then, because everything is a derivative of the anime version in some form, they should have short mentions on the anime article, instead of having all of this information shunted off onto a giant half-article/half-disambiguation page that the "franchise" article is serving as now.

Franchise articles have their purpose when there are so many disparate versions of a subject or well defined series of separate entities. The Rebuild quadrilogy deserves a page for that reason. Digimon, comprising those tamagotchi things and the anime, deserves a franchise page. Star Wars and Star Trek for being the clusterfuck of media deserve franchise pages. It does not work for Ghost in the Shell because it only consists of the manga, Oshii's films, Stand Alone Complex, and Arise. Out of these, only SAC is an outlier, with Oshii's films and ARISE being depictions of the original manga, which is now the subject of the primary topic page rather than having its own separate article just to itself as is your intent, Chris, and the other media are listed secondary to that, as per every other manga and anime page.

On these same lines, this "franchise" set up does not work for Evangelion. First of all, we are providing a disservice to our readers by not providing the anime as the primary topic. Presenting people searching for "Neon Genesis Evangelion" with a page that briefly touches on the anime and its films, and spends much more time detailing the various other media that are not notable on their own is confusing. Cyclopia's comment at my withdrawn AFD saying "this is a case where trying to tidy up actually becomes harmful to readers and articles" is completely wrong. No one wants the franchise when they look up Evangelion other than the handful of people here praising the page's existence. Everything on the franchise page can be summed up in a section on the article on the anime just as it's done on Ghost in the Shell, Cutie Honey (not the best but it's at least not sprawling across several pages), Mazinger Z, Puella Magi Madoka Magica, etc.

But before we get to that stage, can we at least agree that the pages should be shifted around such that the anime is the primary topic?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary topic must be the overview. Not the anime, the anime wasn't even "first". It may be a core material, but the same applies to Digimon. We have multiple different entries with the same name, whose plots are different and whose media has spawned its own media. The media which spawns a line of other media shows the need for a topic article on the subject. Your actions at Ghost in the Shell show how problematic these actions are. The manga's key aspects are wedged in some obscure "list of chapters" which gets under 2000 views a month, many of them being the editors.[1] Stats are not the be all and indicative of a page's value. The FA Triptych, May–June 1973 gets around 500~ views a month.[2] Same with others like Marasmius rotula. That does not mean we merge Marasmius rotula to Marasmiaceae. Simply put, your "view" arguments are invalid. You seem to be incapable of engaging in the consensus building process, instead thumping this strawman argument as if it is the 'be all and end all' argument. Given that we know such actions hinder reader comprehension and result in a complete mess of the articles, it is a perfectly logical conclusion to point out that such merges are unquestionably detrimental. If something is so detrimental, then we should make correcting it a high priority. Until you acknowledge and understand the other sides view of the situation the immature personal attacks launched at the opposition further marginalizes your stance. I understand your side of the coin, but you do not understand mine - despite repeated insights into this matter. Would you please explain to me, how my stance works, through your eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The core material for Digimon is the handheld LED toy line. And regardless of how the anime was not the chronologically first item, it was conceived first and begat the rest. And there are only two items in Evangelion with the same title, and that's the anime and the manga. Everything else is either a remake of the anime with a unique subtitle in film form or the weird non-canon manga and dating sims. End, Death, Rebirth, and Rebuild should be discussed on the anime's page.

What "key aspects" are wedged in List of Ghost in the Shell chapters? The detailed plots of the graphic novels which don't belong on the main article per WP:PLOT? The excessive detail on every single book release and the special editions thereof? The main article contains the vital information for the lay reader and they can look at the other pages for more information. As of right now, this is not even the case with Neon Genesis Evangelion. I had a non-Wikipedian friend look at the page and she said when she wanted to know about Evangelion, she wants to know about the anime first and foremost and not find a list of the books or the toys or the video games first. Other Wikipedians with no emotional investment in this I've approached have even said that the format does not work. You have to understand we need to do this for the readers. Not because you think the franchise page is necessary for all of these pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Only the films and the manga (and to a certain extend the musics, since they have their own article) are even remotely relevant (ie notable) for Wikipedia. All of these can be mentioned in the main article and then developed in their own articles. Any other non-notable derivative product can easily be briefly covered in the main article if necessary (but it mostly won't be). Having a big franchise article only confuses the readers who, in majority, only want to find info about the anime, and puts the focus on unimportant goodies instead.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that I do not intent to come off as an "anti-Evangelion" or "anti-Evangelion contributors" and whatnot. However I'm here to make remarks and comments on the current state of certain article that I feel are entirely justified, and in no way do I mean for any editor involved to take what I say on a personal level (which has caused all the drama in the first place). Now that it's out of the way:

1. "Recorded top seller, very high sales" are not criteria in either BK or GNG, and the "numerous sources about the manga" that I can see are either first party or press releases that happen to mention the manga for sales reports or release updates. Let us be clear that these alone do not qualify as "significant coverage", and if the manga article went up for AfD now, there's a chance it could be merged. And without significant reviews and commentaries being added, maybe that's what we'll have to do. I'm not saying reviews don't exist, and I'm not saying "delete this !!!", but just waving the problem away by bringing up WP:NRVE is not gonna solve anything. At one point we'll either have to improve the article, or merge it. Period.
2. Merging content (whether from the manga or the franchise articles) in another article is not (always) "deleting" it. You seem to take any criticism of the current state of articles to the extreme, as a wholesale deletion maneuver, when that's not at all what we're saying.
3. I'm using page views to determine which article the readers should be directed to first, not to "delete" any content.
4. But we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet. Not all aspects of Evangelion deserve a separate article from the anime so they could be elaborated upon. The whole "film", "manga" and music sections could be moved to the anime article as they are without a single problem (and coverage on the live-action movie could be reduced to reflect its actual relevance). "Books", "Dramas", "Video games", "Patchinko" and "Amusement Park" sections are useless, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a completist's utopia. Actually everything that has a separate article (films, manga, etc) can be alluded to in the main article and linked to where it's properly covered...I can't see why we would even need a full article to do so. The overview can be done in the TV anime article lead, and with links to existing articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, Chris, you tried to do this same thing to Lucky Star (manga) too? So many of these pages you are proposing or are protecting are not necessary. You split off a production section to make a page on the Lucky Star anime only when most of the content duplicated the parent article. This was what happened with Ghost in the Shell (manga) when you derailed the GA review earlier this year. We ended up with two practically identical pages on the same topic. Unless things are as radically different as Mobile Suit Gundam is to SD Gundam Force there's no need to keep splitting everything up into more and more pages per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. And I am pretty sure that you used these same arguments for inclusion on Ghost in the Shell by bringing up every single piece of media to support the need for a franchise article there, when most of that could be organized into the existing manga/Oshii film/SAC/ARISE divisions. The same can be done for Evangelion. For example, a video game for the original TV series, a video game for The End of Evangelion, and a video game for Evangelion 2.0 (hypothetical or not) should not be discussed together as a whole set of video games for Evangelion. They should be discussed along with the things they were adapted from. My AFD was stupid, but Folken's point that nothing is going to be actually deleted during these merges is important. You have automatically assumed that everything is going to be gone for good as a result of these discussions. All of the information is going to be kept. It's just not going to be in its present locations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, the topic overview is covered by WP:SUMMARY. AVOIDSPLIT is for those which don't meet N or GNG. Number of views is not a rationale for deletion or merging. Articles should focus on one topic and not gloss over secondary, tertiary and so on media. Izno is correct about A&M and Gwern also makes strong arguments. I see a lot of rhetoric and a lot of lengthy words on strawman arguments. It is confounding how notable articles are being forced into a mere paragraph or less, as done on Fullmetal Alchemist. The Harry Potter books each have their own article and each book's movie adaption has its own article. The proposal would disrupt the flow of the anime, and remove or limit a proper overview - already aspects of the novel, dramas and amusement park seem to be "unnecessary". Let's not mince words, the proposal is deletion of an article without AFD or proper merge. Secondly, the deletion happy attitude goes against the typical process of WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:BEFORE. Lastly, NGE is perfectly acceptable article under the guidelines - if you are going to argue against it with a list like WP:NOT - cite the specific reason. Which Folken de Fanel did not specify. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would merely like to point out that WP:AVOIDSPLIT also directs you to improve content in one article before splitting, not after. Folken de Fanel could not be more right in saying "At one point we'll either have to improve the article, or merge it. Period.". Articles should be split under the assumption that they will be improved, but working in your userspace first is something I would recommend, as it would give you the time you need to develop an article before moving it to mainspace.--十八 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Explain how this applies to Neon Genesis Evangelion or its manga, already long in existence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The avoided split should have been performed 6 years ago.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Invalidated by my argument above. AVOIDSPLIT does not apply to articles which meet N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The franchise is a WP:SYN creation on the English Wikipedia. I've never seen it or Ghost in the Shell described as a franchise anywhere. Everything discussed on the franchise page can be easily summarized in a "Media" section on an article that focuses on the anime, as per every single other anime and manga article on this project. Haruhi Suzumiya is a suitable example of how things should be done with both GITS and Evangelion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong couldn't be more right. The franchise page in itself doesn't even pass GNG (because the topic there is not the TV anime/films/manga/music etc independently of each other. It's the so-called franchise as a whole, and I don't see even an hint of secondary coverage on that), and everything in there could be summarized (and point to proper individual articles) in the Tv anime article without changing anything. This franchise approach is nothing but a gimmick idea that just doesn't work for Evangelion and brings nothing except redundancy and confusion to the reader, and worse, leaves the TV anime article incomplete.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The franchise itself is an acceptable article. It aids in navigation and comprehension and understanding of the whole body of works. Calling an entire article SYN is offensive to me. While the term "media" is more often used than "franchise", GITS is even referred to as a franchise by the Anime Encyclopedia, Japan Closeup V.12, and Mangatopia. NGE is no different, I do not see how it is a "gimmick". The original arguments made have not been refuted or even challenged; nor do you clarify your own arguments on how NGE is covered under NOT. The discussion is very long, but I've already answered why a summary tagged onto the anime is a problem. I will not repeat it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because you have those three entities (of which the only one I've heard of before is AE) calling this a franchise does not mean we need to have a franchise article. And fine. Be offended. Because someone's taken sources about the anime, about the manga, about the anime's movies, about the anime's video games, and about the anime's music and come to the conclusion that a franchise exists. No one critically discusses this as a franchise. I could take all of the content starting from the "Films" section on Neon Genesis Evangelion, drop the headers down a level each, and paste it onto Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to make a "Media" section like found on every other anime and manga article. No level of you unnecessarily expanding items to make them seem more important, as when you added information on the Death(True) directors cuts or when you expanded the film section at Ghost in the Shell, is really convincing me or anyone else that the franchise format works. For a series of books like Harry Potter or a series of films like Star Wars or a series of video games like Mario Party, a central page describing the concept and the group as a whole works. Not for GITS and not for Eva. They are not "series" in that regard. There is no level of continuity between the different aspects of GITS or Eva as a whole to warrant a franchise/series set up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, and respond to my argument. I will not continue to pick apart your rhetoric so you can provide more rhetoric. I've been asking for a policy and best practice argument for days now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYN WP:CFORK WP:AVOIDSPLIT WP:MOSANIME WP:PLOT WP:NOTIINFO WP:REDUNDANT. Your refusal to acknowledge arguments based on discussion of the facts is getting bothersome. No one should be required to do what I just did to get their point across. There's certainly no policy that says that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your arguments are redundant and just rattling off policies without specifics. Let's see, we already covered SYN, quite adequately as seen above. The whole topic and argument to include can be covered under WP:SUMMARY. Secondly, it is not a SYN to infer a "franchise", numerous sources refer to it as a franchise explicitly, but more importantly, it is a topic-level overview of the intellectual property and encompasses multiple creators and numerous titles which have to be licensed and sanctioned. Which meets the definition. It meets the definition of an acceptable CFORK, explain otherwise. AVOIDSPLIT is for those that do not meet N or GNG, the articles meet N and GNG. MOSAM has that removed. PLOT does not apply, all three are not applicable, explain otherwise if you disagree. WP:IINFO is a duplicate, why mention it again? WP:REDUNDANT does not apply, it is not the same scope and this is under SUMMARY and RELART, WP:REDUNDANT applies to topic duplications and that is an essay, which is just mirroring the unacceptable CFORK articles. We've gone through these before. You do not explain how they go over editing guidelines and result in a benefit to Wikipedia. If you want to debate I need specifics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually for huge franchise series such as Gundam the articles are kept separate as merging them altogether would be a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been ignoring this discussion, and don't really want to read the whole thing now, but I decided I wanted to give my opinion. I'm sorry if I miss something that has been said above and retread old ground. Anyway, I've broken out what I want to say into a few points listed below:

1. I think most people who view the article titled Neon Genesis Evangelion would expect to find an article primarily about the TV series, with links to other portions of the franchise. I think regardless of if we have an article about the franchise as a whole, the article at the title "Neon Genesis Evangelion" should be the article that focuses on the TV series. So I agree with the suggestion to move the article currently at Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" title.
2. I think it makes sense to list all the topics in a large franchise like Evangelion in a list article specifically made for the purpose of listing all the topics in the franchise, rather than trying to cover numerous subtopics in an article primarily about one part of the franchise. I think the article currently at Neon Genesis Evangelion should be renamed to something like List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media or List of Neon Genesis Evangelion-related topics (similar to List of Halo media or List of Harry Potter-related topics). That list article should then be linked from the article on the TV series (probably with a hatnote at the top). This is the way non-anime/manga media franchises are covered, and seems to be a logical way to organize the material. I've never understood the resistance to having such articles in this Wikiproject, and have never gotten a good explanation of why they shouldn't exist. In the case of Evangelion, there is clearly enough topics to have such a franchise media list, as the article currently at Neon Genesis Evangelion shows.
3. The original Neon Genesis Evangelion manga is clearly notable in its own right, and I don't understand why anyone would claim it isn't (unless perhaps you just didn't bother looking for sources). I see no reason to merge the content from the current Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) article into another article, or to replace it with only a chapter list (just having a chapter list is not a sufficient way to cover something that is a notable topic). Some reviews in sources generally considered reliable and/or listed at the reliable source list for the Wikiproject are [3] [4] [5] [6] (some of those may already be in the article). Anime News Network's page for the manga also lists it as being linked from 65 news articles, some of which would certainly have useable content. I think the article on the manga should be expanded, including content such as reception from reviewers, which seems to be lacking right now. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So you advocate one bad article on the anime and franchise combined versus two separate articles which cover the material in a proper manner? We already directly link to the anime, but what if I want the manga when I type in NGE? Its going to be more then half-way down the page. That's as illogical as making the anime hold the rest of the bulk. If anyone wants to discuss real-time, I'm on IRC for the next four hours at en-wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you must be misunderstanding what I'm suggesting, as I'm certainly advocating three articles and not one. What I've advocated above can be summarised as followed:

1. Rename Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to Neon Genesis Evangelion.
2. Rename the current Neon Genesis Evangelion to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media.
3. Keep Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) and expand its reception section.

The rest of my post was just an explanation of why I think those things should be done. About your question "what if I want the manga", I think the primary title should go to the thing that the most people will want, which I think is the TV series. The franchise media list and the manga can both be listed with hatnotes, so that people who want those topics can get to them without scrolling down the page. Calathan (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes more sense. It'd be easier to disamb because that will lead to less confusion and make more since for the increasing numbers of mobile viewers. I don't particularly care where it goes at this point, only that the franchise gets its article. We are missing a lot of business information, unrelated to the media... like that big tax matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, there's now a clear consensus at least in favor of renaming Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the current Neon Genesis Evangelion to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. I'm thus proceeding (but it looks like the move is gonna require admin technical intervention). For now, users who want it remain free to manage List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media as they see fit until other issues are raised in subsequent discussion (and for the record, on the strict condition that Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) can be expanded with significant reviews, I don't mind it remaining as a stand alone).Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. Do not do anything. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple people seem to be agreeing that the anime is the primary topic though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And multiple people disagree with NGE being the anime and not an overview. The arguments presented so far are stronger for the status quo. I'm on IRC, hop on if you want to discuss it in greater length. WP:SUMMARY and the specific matters as applied to "mercury" and the such show preference for a disamb if not a broad topic overview which is otherwise all inclusive. My original arguments have not even been challenged, they are outright ignored for "this is what other articles do" approach and harkon back to the removed MOS-AM "content guideline". A full page needs to be given to the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

One number's growing and the other is staing the same, though. It is only your opinion that the arguments are stronger because you've cherry picked aspects of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines that serve your needs despite the larger meaning of the policy and guideline not really being in favor of your proposal.

You constantly reference other topics as "franchises" and praise their work as having franchise pages when they are series of things that in their fiction there is an ongoing continuity that requires having a central article dedicated to the subject. Ghost in the Shell does not have that. You have the original manga and a bunch of animated adaptations (video games exist for the original and for the adaptations, so they should be discussed in those contexts rather than the whole). Neon Genesis Evangelion doesn't have that either. It's an anime series that spawned several manga, canonical or not, and multiple film retellings of the last two episodes, and a film quadrilogy that retells the original anime (video games also exist but they can also be divided up into what they are a video game version of rather than discussing them as a whole).

And your removal of that "content guideline" through an RFC does not mean that as a group we cannot decide to do the same thing anyway. It's simply no longer codified in the manual of style. There's nothing that prevents us from following the spirit of that original guideline. It simply allows editors like yourself to have a valid reason for going against what it originally said. With Dragon Ball Z that produced a well written article. Under the guise of Evangelion and GITS it's not working that well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Break 2

One does not simply "cherry-pick" policies or guidelines. N and GNG are the requirements for a separate article and if you think Fullmetal Alchemist is anything more then a decent overview of the media, than you are sorely mistaken. This "local consensus" to dismiss policies is a farce and results in the destruction of content and coverage. This is deliberate marginalization and minimization of notable topics. A disamb (while I don't particularly like it) is the solution and would be a real compromise. Let me know when you are willing to discuss the issues and actually respond to my arguments and deal with the merits of matter. Yelling about PTOPIC and saber-rattling a hackneyed plan because it is "the standard" of this ailing project is one reason why A&M continues to be a joke and other numerous Wikias take the deleted content and fix them into something of value. Deterioration is one thing, but to advance and speed the process is another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity. That's 5 to 3 in favor of a rename, and you've yourself stated "I don't particularly care where it goes at this point, only that the franchise gets its article".Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a straw poll. I don't much seeing my words out of proper context, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'd not care the name of the article or where it is on a disambiguation page. It could be (franchise) for all I care, but NGE would be a disamb. It would help with the ACCESS issues some. Also you walked into a 8 month long dispute, you may not consider these comments "nice", but the entire matter is complex. Many of the comments made are the result of prima facie encounter, and it shows. Given A&M's track record in this area, its lack of development and issues in getting GA and FA articles since its collapse... I wonder about the value of such deletionist views. It is impossible to make a good anime article within a franchise scope and its impossible to make a good franchise in an anime/manga scope. The content afforded to the others does no justice and the business and aspects which make up the whole are poorly represented. If you do one or the other, you violate COATRACK unless you intend to remove and "scale" the other to the size - when it could and should stand separate. This is what happened at GITS and this mentality will result in mediation in November. Chances are this matter will be included. The content dispute could wind up going to Arb Com if it cannot be resolved. I hope to have at least 20 more GA's by that point though - and probably more if everyone stops the drama and decides to forge a compromise in line with SS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleary there is a personal conflict here that goes beyond any topic or article, however in no way should it prevent or deter uninvolved users from contributing to these topic areas.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the PA from your post. I am not trying to prevent uninvolved users from contributing or commenting, I was pointing out that situation is complicated and the prima facie case is not an applicable case according to Wikipedia's policies. View count does not equate an article's value or p-topic status. Ptopic doesn't help with multiple articles being the same name. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to start with a warning as I am frankly quite tired of this methodology. Please try to work with your fellow editors rather than against. Wikipedia has a long history of overzealous editors deciding whats best and forcing a made up consensus with made up straw polls. This had resulted in either the disgrace or blocks of the involved editors and didn't affect the outcome much - if at all.

I do not agree with any kind of "merger". First of all, the three articles mentioned each has multiple credible sources establishing notability. That said I am not happy with how the franchise article is the main article. I think Neon Genesis Evangelion should be moved to something like Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) and Neon Genesis Evangelion itself become a disambiguation page allowing quick navigation to the reader to whichever topic specific article they actually seek. Someone coming to wikipedia on Neon Genesis Evangelion will know if they want to reach the article on franchise, anime or manga. I also would extend this rationale to other similar articles including Harry Potter Star Trek and Doctor Who as well as various anime that has multiple flavors such as NGE.

So in short I propose the franchise page be moved to its own article and the main article instead become a disambiguation page.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Second this. ---^ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The main article should not be a disambiguation page. That's just going to cause more problems. We have enough proof that the anime should be the primary topic article. A disambiguation page is not going to solve anything. I'd be fine with making the current franchise page disambiguated as "(franchise)" or renamed into a "List of media" but based on the page view numbers we can see that more people are interested in the anime than they are in the franchise aspect.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not reorganize Mercury to be about the element or the planet or whatever you find to have more "views". This makes absolutely no sense when the pages receive tens of thousand of hits anyways. You'd condemn a hundred thousand people a month to wading through the details of the anime to hit what they want and ruin the anime page in the process. Generally, if two or more things have the same name you disamb them. The only reason for a topic-level page is to provide the whole picture, but if we are not going to worry about selection criteria than a disamb is the proper format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say the only reason why Mercury is a diambig page is because that word can apply to many different things independent of each other. "Neon Genesis Evangelion" only applies to itself and its own media, so you're comparing apples and oranges. By the same token, Wikipedia wouldn't make Final Fantasy a disambig page when it works better as a franchise article. Maybe Eva can work the same way as Final Fantasy, maybe not, but Mercury is way out of left field.--十八 05:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Juhachi. And I still extremely doubt that people looking up "Neon Genesis Evangelion" want anything other than the anime. In the past 30 (or 60, I can't remember off the top of my head) days more people looked up the anime than the franchise. The people who think that the franchise article benefits the project are still in the minority here. Right now, there is absolutely no reason for Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) to be omitting any of the information I have proposed other than the fact you are demanding it be included on this franchise article. The films are part of the anime. The manga adaptation gets one or two links at best. The video games have no presence. Why are these topics not mentioned at all on the article? That's just ridiculous.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There was absolutely no reason for this not to be on the anime article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The arguments have already been made. See my posts above. Franchise and anime are best separate. A disamb is a compromise for efficiency and the readers. Straw polls do not count and what "minority" are you talking about? No one has addressed either of the arguments I made. A disamb - even if they are related - seems to be a better option than a franchise page and it will end the debate. I think I am done here - I can keep parroting "see my above arguments and respond to them" all day, but if no one wants to discuss the interests for the readers and engage in consensus building than I'll just wait till larger processes like mediation or arbcom gets to it. I thought Evangelion was a pretty good disamb to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You're just ignoring everyone else's arguments towards making these moves because they don't fit in with your personal goals for producing good or featured articles. I've not seen these arguments of yours that you keep referring to anyway. You obviously weren't particularly clear and it just seems like an excuse to ignore all further discussion until someone can figure out what the heck you're referring to.

Now, what is important for the readers is that they immediately get what they're looking for, and the greatest amount of evidence points to that being the anime page. We do not need another disambiguation page. We barely need a franchise page. What should be done is restoring various things to their pre-2007 status quo with the franchise page being at a disambiguated title and the anime being the primary topic because the set up no longer works and most internal links intend for the anime rather than the franchise.

And we should not have to go through mediation or arbcom when a minority of editors disagree with a proposal. Arbcom doesn't handle content disputes anyway. I came here to get a decent level of input on whether or not my idea was good and all I've gotten is the same sort of opposition from you, Chris, over the Ghost in the Shell pages. Constant claims of personal attacks. Constant claims of "out of process deletion" or "margininalization of information". You claim to have the readers' interest in mind but it just seems like you're focused on wanting to produce high quality articles in line with the research you have been doing in real life.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how simple it is to impliment my primary proposed change? You poo-pooed it constantly in our off-site discussion despite how minimal it is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguments have been given. The two main unanswered ones are WP:SUMMARY (WP:DETAIL), WP:DABCONCEPT. Especially since the overview is endorsed by DABCONCEPT, the page itself under SUMMARY and more so in the DETAIL section. But I'm open to compromises like disamb pages. Also, the PA's are not nice; but our focus on the content dispute is key. Even your last line is a bit of an ad hom, because my research focus is an academic interest. Anyone can go to the library and request the same materials I do. And secondly, "you're focused on wanting to produce high quality articles" is why you should edit Wikipedia. So what if it is something I take an interest in researching? Mediation and Arbcom do handle content disputes. Your addition to the anime page is reasonable - I haven't even begun to work on the anime page simply because fixing that mess it going to take a lot of time; and you never mentioned doing that either. Not to side-track, but I intended to have the GITS-topics improved first before NGE... but I'll put up some work now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, neither of you is ready to back down, and given your on-going dispute resolution process I don't see it happening anytime soon. You've both made your opinions clear, and I think now is a good time to let other people say what they have to say, after all, this is an on-going RfC opened only a few days ago. Ultimately the discussion will die down and an uninvolved admin will be able to assess the consensus. This is the only way it's gonna work, if we had to wait for one of you to just drop it and do as the other wants, we could be here forever, and we can't just lock the articles until you settle your personal issues. The only thing you two are doing now is repeating the same arguments over and over, losing patience and lapsing into incivility (yes, both of you) with each new round...You should go work on some other articles and let the debate here unfold without making it your personal battleground. If and when there is a consensus, admins will know how to assess it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just going to point out that the RFC was not started in the beginning, was not neutral and I'm being civil, but I do not particularly like the comments made against me. I've stuck to the content itself, I may brush off the strawman arguments, but editor's should not employ them or advance strawpolling and exceedingly liberal definitions of "minority" and "consensus". Wikipedia is not a democracy, but more of a meritocracy. Given that I've complained about PAs, I've been civil, I can't believe how my "focus on creating high-quality articles..." is being used against me. While its not as bad as "bias" it is still offensive to me. Whereas someone else might actually take it as a compliment out of context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We need the RFC for outside input, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Typically, that is done in a new section unrelated to the discussion already made with the arguments presented neutrally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Too complicated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have heard this before where people canvassed for votes so please do not insult my intelligence and pretend as if we need outside input. <sarcasm>We simply need to do exactly what you want and it will all be good.</sarcasm> I oppose to any kind of RFC or vote for that matter unless you are going to make a good faith attempt to offer a compromise. If we can't agree then we may consider RfCs and votes etc. After all the status-quo is not as bad as what you propose. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes the problem and is willing to point it out in more than a single post. I sometimes feel alone on such matters because the good input of others gets drowned out in the mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The compromise I would agree to is the retention of the current "franchise page" as a disambiguated title but the anime at the main title page. We absolutely do not require another disambiguation page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And is sending "...(anime)" to GA review really wise when we cannot come to a decision as to where the page should even be located?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation here seems to go against WP:DISAMBIG, many users having argued there is a primary topic. The compromise I propose is a hatnote guiding readers to NGE (disambiguation) (which will link to NGE (Franchise) among others), inserted in a primary article about the TV anime.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

- No. Now stop repeating yourself repeatedly as if you have a consensus. Academically, Neon Genesis Evangelion is not just the anime, but the whole. The view count may favor the anime, but with multiple titles using it, a broad-concept page (the topic-level) is given more weight. View counts are not the absolute reasoning, and we hatnote straight to the anime anyways and we could always disamb from the NGE topic, but that would be a bit redundant and many works do not have their own articles. Otherwise, I say the status quo is fine - just more fixing needs to be done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Several users in this discussion have disagreed with you. You may not like it but you can't just act as if they don't matter. Please try to reach a compromise.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And several users disagree with you and Ryulong. Do not discount them and seek a compromise yourself. I've continued to work on the topics and address the issues, but get no response to my arguments other than "ptopic based on views". Anyways... back to fixing the themes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that 3 other users besides Ryulong and me have acknowledged the TV anime as the primary topic. I'm actively seeking a compromise and have actually proposed something, but you have rejected it. To be honest, you have failed to make any argument based on something else than your own opinion, unsupported by external elements such as page views or use in RS. You'd have more luck in convincing people if you used such elements, instead of repeating your views over and over until people get tired of it and just give up. Note that labelling any opposite argument as "straw man", as you do, is not a satisfying answer and does not help to keep a constructive debate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Break 3

Tell you what, I'm done arguing with you two. There is no consensus to move, so the status quo remains. But in summary let's go through this just so anyone reading this understands that strawpolling and IDHT that do not suddenly forge a consensus.

• Support move: Ryulong and Folken de Fanel arguing WP:PTOPIC based on view count. Sjones, Mika1h do not make an argument but support the move.
• Oppose move: Gwern, Izno and myself arguing PTOPIC and WP:SUMMARY (and DETAIL). A Certain White Cat disagrees with merger, proposed disamb.
• Not included - KirtZJ did not comment on the dispute, the comment made was on Gwern's use of A&M as a "defunct Wikiproject". Juhachi offered comments about the arguments, but has not explicitly declared a side - with two comments on AVOIDSPLIT and DISAMB, respectfully.

It is 4 support to 4 oppose before looking at arguments. When you look at arguments made it falls to 2 support and 4 oppose. When you look at the arguments, by itself, the issue of PTOPIC is the core. The "readers want's" is the argument to allow for readers to arrive at the most popular page, by view count. An argument that the anime can hold the entirety of the franchise content has been challenged on both sides. The opposition notes that Neon Genesis Evangelion is a franchise with the same name applied to different media. The first release being the manga, then the anime, and on to the other films, video games and their related adaptations, new storylines and diverse media. The view count argument analysis was shown to raise concerns about the number of readers that would be negatively impacted and the existence of a hatnote from the franchise to the anime page. Ryulong pointed out that the anime received more views then the franchise over a select period, highlighting the fact that readers are finding the anime without making an intermediate stop at the franchise page. Of particular historic interest is the period of April - June 2013 having considerably higher interest in the franchise over the anime page, with June - July closely mirroring the anime. Other related topics have a view count showing more than 50% of views of articles of the franchise also exist, like Rebuild of Evangelion, which correlate and agree with this analysis. In short, there is no consensus at minimum and the status quo should remain. When analyzing the arguments, the preference appears to be for the continued broad concept coverage of the topic at Neon Genesis Evangelion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is your own subjective view of the situation. Objectively, there are more people in favor of TV anime as main. You fail to formulate any coherent argument against that, and you fail to formulate any compromise.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So are we doing this or not? Because the current set up is still kinda shit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to formally mention I have put up a modified move request. I have also sent messages to everyone who participated in this discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Otaku

This is a major popculture article that I am now reviewing for GA. Additional comments and opinions welcome (please comment at Talk:Otaku, not here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

I submitted a WikiProject proposal for Project Vocaloid, which is, as the name implies, a project focused on Vocaloid-related articles, their improvement, and the addition of Vocaloid-related articles that currently do not exist. Since the appearances of most Vocaloids in existence, such as Hatsune Miku, KAITO, Kasane Teto, or SeeU, look a lot like that of characters in anime/manga, I just came by to inform the project of its (potentially) being listed as a related project.

I wanted to make this an entirely new project because Vocaloid has many things related to it that would fall under several projects' jurisdictions. For example, individual Vocaloid characters, such as Hatsune Miku and KAITO could fall under this project's scope, due to their appearances being quite "anime-esque", but pages like MikuMikuDance would fall under WikiProject Animation's watch, due to the software being a tool used for 3D animation, as well as being related to Vocaloid.

I just wanted to give the project a heads-up that it'll (potentially) be shown in the "Related Projects" section of another WikiProject.

Have a nice day! N Studios 2 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Koushi.biz as Magazine release date source

Is Koushi.biz reliable for this, I've been using it to confirm Stencil release dates, which seem correct so far. Also, is it gibberish to anyone else or just me. Gibberish UnGibberished DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak (or read) Japanese, but this would appear to be the official website of "Koushi Interactive", which I'm guessing is a Japan based company. If that's true and "Stencil" is a magazine this company publishes, then this would qualify as a reliable source for that magazine's release dates. As for the "gibberish", that's because your browser is incorrectly guessing the website's character encoding. Manually set it to Shift_JIS. Goodraise 09:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The company isn't a publisher of that magazine though as far as I know. I actually don't understand how it decides which series to catalog, seeing as it series like selections like Dokaben, Doraemon and Magic User's Club. My guess was this website was a catalog for some library named Koushi. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts

Article alerts are now active. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think having the article alerts transcluded in the location you have placed them clutters up the page. In my opinion, it distracts from what that page should primary cover, which is the project scope, how to join, and various resources for editors. I think that information would be more useful to people newly interested in joining the project, who might be turned off if the first thing they see is the list of alerts. An experienced editor who is interested in the alerts would just watchlist the alert page anyway, so I don't see how transcluding it on the main page is helpful. I would prefer that the alert page instead be linked (not transcluted), from the bottom of the News section. Calathan (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The alerts are good for the project because it prevents the need to manually update pages to notify users. It also serves to be our "news" and is in use on many other wikiprojects because it offers unparallel ease in accessing relevant project changes without additional administrative work. I brought the matter up before, twice even. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you brought it up twice. When you previously suggested it as a replacement for the deletion sorting page, I and another user both opposed it. As I said then, it doesn't replace the need for a manually updated deletion page, since some of the pages being tagged for deletion aren't already tagged as belonging to the wikiproject. I think both the manually updated pages and the automatically generated page can be useful. However, I don't want the whole alerts page directly transcluded onto the main wikiproject page, since I think the page should primarily focus on information that someone new to the wikiproject would most need, namely what the project covers and how to join. I've edited the alerts to be similar to what Wikiproject Video Games uses. You can still see the whole alerts section by clicking on "Show" next to the article alerts, but it isn't all shown by default (the "view full" link instead takes you to the alerts page . . . I just copied what Wikiproject Video Games had done, but I'm not sure if "view full" is the right wording as people may expect that to have the same functionality as "show"). I think this way of having the alerts present but not initially showing is a better way of presenting them, as then it is still easily accessable but doesn't take up too much of the page. Anyway, someone interested in the alerts is going to watchlist the alert page (rather than going to the main wikiproject page), so having them shown or not shown on the main wikiproject page shouldn't affect anyone who uses the alerts frequently. Calathan (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Gundam merge discussion

Hello, we are currently conducting a merge discussion (here) about trimming down and merging Cultural impact of Gundam into Gundam, the main article for the franchise. Any extra input in discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks!Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Ah! My Goddess (season 1)/archive1

The Featured List status of Ah! My Goddess (season 1) is reviewed. There are issues, so you can fix them. --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded, but we need more people on this. Let's not ignore it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't need "more people", just one editor willing to do some grunt work. I might do it. We'll see. Goodraise 14:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting Anime

I'm preparing to re-write the anime page. I'd like some people's inputs on a few matters before I get started. The sources I am planning on using include:

1. Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke by Napier
2. The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki by Cavallaro
3. Anime and the Art of Adaption by Cavallaro
4. Anime and the Visual Novel by Cavallaro
5. Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation by McCarthy
6. Anime Essentials by Poitras
7. The Anime Machine by Lamarre
8. The Soul of Anime by Condry
9. The Astro Boy Essays by Schodt
10. 100 Anime by Brophy
11. Satoshi Kon: The Illusionist by Osmond
12. Understanding Manga and Anime by Brenner
13. Cinema Anime edited by Brown and by others.

With that being said, I still have about 20-25 more books coming in a few days, but I was wondering about some additional Japanese book sources the 1977 history of animation is one rare book I cannot get my hands it. I've got a few special art books coming from the exhibitions which will help out, like Little Boy, but aside from the cinema aspects, I need more on the production systems. I was thinking of a layout similar to Poitras' book because it was very reader friendly and logical, but I am open to some ideas before fixing it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2‎

This is just to alert you that I've opened a GAR on this article, as it seems far below the standards required. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:ANIME

This guideline is disputed in WP:VPP; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Community GAR

Fullmetal Alchemist, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--十八 21:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sailor Moon/GA2

This article is full of citation needed tags and questionable sources. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Is This a Zombie? Japanese Title Discussion

A discussion about the Japanese Title is currently taking place in Talk:Is This a Zombie?. Please help resolve the conflict. Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In-universe nomenclature in English

Moved to Talk:Girls und Panzer

 – 07:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In cases where we have an anime series that has been localised in the west, and the in-universe official English-language nomenclature differs, which one do we use? For example, in the case of Girls und Panzer, the official print media in Japan uses "Panzerfahren" as the English (yes, English, even though it's German) translation for senshado (戦車道), as can be seen here, whilst Sentai Filmworks localises it as "tankery" in its North American release anime dub. Both are official, which one should be used? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Has either been used more in discussion by reliable third party sources? If not, could you just leave it as senshado and then write "(officially translated as "Panzerfahren" in the manga and "tankery" in the anime)" when the term is first introduced? Failing that, I'd just say default to the source material, so "tankery".--十八 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd make a specific footnote in a note section for something this complex and note both English terms prior to the note. We can address the issue better in a footnote for readers who are confused or put off by this, also this would mean picking and referring to a singular usage going forward and I might suggest "Tankery" because it is not the German word. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I've decided to move this discussion to the Talk:Girls und Panzer, since it probably is more suitable to continue the discussion over there, as it specifically deals with that one article. Feel free to revert my edit here if any of you disagree, however please keep a copy of the original thread at the GuP talkpage. Thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

As you may all know, Sailor Moon is up for GAR, and will probably be delisted by tomorrow. Could someone address the problems raised in the GAR? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of Protoculture Addicts has been questionned

I have open a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to establish whether Protoculture Addicts, an American anime/manga magazine, is reliable or not. As this is certainly of interest to the Anime/Manga Wikiproject, members are invited to comment at here. Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we centralize this discussion at the RSN noticeboard or someplace?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I asked you to stop forum shopping and you are taking this way out of context and somehow arriving that all of PA is being questioned and not the specific narrow use of a paraphrasing in an opinion piece that is in direct contention with both the original source and its translations. Please stop making this dramatic and trying to question all of Protoculture Addicts in a very polemic fashion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC) This is a neutral notice that a source of importance for the project has been questioned. I have mentioned the "specific narrow use" in my request, but surely you do realize that once you start questioning a part of a source, you end up questioning the whole. Everything has a consequence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Uh no, that is not what it means. Just like I have found issues with Dani Cavallaro's works doesn't mean they are unreliable, corroborate your sources and do your best to verify any inconsistencies or disputes. So who cares if Protoculture messed up the section on Harmony Gold's Dragon Ball dub? Aside from the naming issue the information is actually matches. In this case its the editorial in dispute with the original interview from which the content was derived and paraphrased (not quoted as you assert). I'm sorry if you disagree, but your assertions of bad faith and misrepresentation of the issue is offensive to me. Wikipedia does not blindly follow the errors of a source and say the entirety is a RS or is not an RS based on the presence of such errors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) For the love of God, please explain what would exactly be in dispute ? I still don't see any difference.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC) WP:BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC) That does not answer my question. What is disputed in the PA editorial ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Finding sources for these deleted articles?

Is anyone interested in checking for reliable sources, in any language, for the following topics? They were deleted, but see if you can get RSes:

• en: Moe Kare!!
• en: Vamp!
• en:Double Arts
• en:Katsuhito Nomura
• en:Karui Shosetsu Magazine
• en:Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer
• en:Onani Master Kurosawa
• en:BZ (manga)

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Crunchyroll (streaming websites) in infobox

I have a question: In an article like Btooom!, Crunchyroll is added as an English network, and the user adding this argues that it is common practice. Is there a consensus for (or against) adding a streaming website as a TV network (or a licensee) in infoboxes? I thought the |network_en = parameter is meant only for TV stations, and the |licensor = parameter for companies that have the right to release physical media in their territories; am I wrong? Is this issue discussed anywhere? Raamin (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Streaming is a form of distribution. If Template:English anime licensee is taken liberally than it could be added, and Template:Infobox animanga should be updated to reflect that view. Streaming is a valid form of distribution and as an official licensee, should ideally be listed as a distributor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Crunchyroll should be added as it is a website to stream videos as youtube is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Niconico counts as a Streaming Network? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think they were licensed to run official shows though. Some companies run similar things on Youtube, but "Youtube" is not to be added to the list if I am correct about this. The licensee should host it and not just a hosting service, right? Its the difference from listing Hulu and Funimation for One Piece. Funimation broadcasts on Hulu, but Funimation holds the distribution rights. A bit of a weird situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Niconico's Attack on Titans Channel Page could be a good example, it hosts the episodes, the mangas, the video distribution rights, direct links to their official sites, Twitter and Facebook pages, and also it is a widely recognized streaming channel in Japan. This reference [7] is one proof. So I don't see any problem with the Licensee (Niwango) and the host (Niconico) to be the one to broadcast --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The licensor field is for English-language distribution outside of Japan.--十八 01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This has me thinking - is there a reason we only list English licensors and localisations? Is this a general norm, or an actual rule? I've never been around for any previous discussion on the topic, so I don't know the full story. Manga in general is translated/localised and serialised in Taiwan by publishers such as Sharp Point Press and Chingwin Publishing Group months ahead of English licensors, for example. In some cases, manga don't even make it to the west, despite being localised and published in Taiwan and South Korea. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This project has a very unhealthy Angelo view point which does not only discount Chinese releases, but actually extends to removing coverage of non-USA or UK releases as "irrelevant" or "fancruft". Such actions are extremely damaging yet some people believe this is acceptable and even beneficial. Aside from hating manhwa even carried by publishers as manga, this project carries the purist rather than art form view. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

We used to list non-English publishers in a publisher_other field that was removed back in 2009. Despite what Chris has suggested that we "discount Chinese releases", it's standard practice to list other licensors in prose, but this was removed them from the boxes because the infobox facilitates a quick-view of any pertinent information in an article that someone on the English-speaking Wikipedia may want to know, including whether it's licensed in English or not. It was decided that this information is not needed for the infobox as it does not relate to English-language distribution. WP:VG follows a similar guideline.

Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, so anything beyond "it was also released in COUNTRY by COMPANY" in prose doesn't belong here.--十八 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

BIAS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because WP:BIAS deals with WP:NPOV. Why do you think we have other language Wikipedias? Just so people can read an article in a different language? Different languages have different priorities, and in no way should the English Wikipedia be expected to handle everything. It's not like this is anything new, btw. Wikipedia has been doing this for years, not just this project. Articles on books often have a single line that says "The book has been translated into over X languages". Only really popular books will get something like Translations of The Lord of the Rings.--十八 04:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So you are advocating removing reliably sourced information to suit YOUR biased viewpoint. If that isn't a telltale sign of a problem, I don't know what is. It is not going to kill the article to say that there is another language adaptation for Chinese or that tens of millions of people, far more than the actual English viewership, doesn't deserve coverage beyond "it was also released in X by Y". Why do you believe removing such content constitutes an improvement? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What "reliably sourced information" are you talking about? What more would you have to say beyond "it was also released in X by Y" unless it was really important, like there was some big controversy in another country. WP:BALANCE says that "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." And whether something is prominent or not should be decided by reliable sources.--十八 05:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You make a fair point on information overload, and if this was decided by consensus, then I guess that strengthens the point. Though, what would be considered as an appropriate balance between WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:CRUFT? One might also argue that foreign-language localisations are just as notable; whilst we don't see a lot of official localised manga publications elsewhere, the main regions that do get most of the localisations are North America, Taiwan and South Korea.

Would it also be better choice to add excessive information to paragraph prose instead of the infobox, as opposed to the other way around? I think that the latter would be more consise, since instead of "it was also released in COUNTRY by COMPANY, [REFERENCE]" (long string of text in standard font), we would simply have "[FLAG] COMPANY [REFERENCE]" within a tiny slit in the infobox (shorter, brief mention in smaller font). Just as a general note, the Chinese Wikipedia usually lists North American, UK, Australian, South Korean, Taiwanese, Hong Kong and mainland localisations in most anime/manga page infoboxes, because it's perceived over there that only including Chinese localisations would constitute a Sinocentric systemic bias. (This is irrelevant to English Wikipedia policy/guidelines though, just pointing out a parallel) --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bloating the infobox reduces readability and the point of an infobox: to provide the most important, up-front information to the reader. If the reader wants to read more, scrolling down to the relevant section and seeing that "X was also published by Y in Z" is not difficult to do. Infoboxes are also not meant to be impossibly long, even if the animanga box tends to have this problem because of the use of many different boxes. Some popular series like Dragon Ball used to have like 20 flag icons in the infobox, for both the manga and anime, so to say it was "bloated" is an understatement. Flags aren't used in infoboxes anymore, but that's besides the point. And I'm not saying foreign-language localizations aren't notable; that's why we put them in prose. Not everything has to be in the infobox.--十八 05:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Before those parameters removals from the template, during article preparation for GA review non-English licensors/publishers informations tended to be among the first informations to be removed due to the inability to find reliables sources (a very time consuming activity). The editors who added those flags in the template rarely bothered to provide sources. Presently if an editor really want to add that kind of informations, it should be done in prose with a reference to back it. Bottom line better fewer sourced edits in prose form than cheap unsourced edits spamming because it's always the same handful of editors who are cleaning the mess afterward :(
Full disclosure : I'm French so i'm hardly an English biased person. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Crunchyroll could fit the broadcast model for those shows that are simulcast to North America. It would not apply to Netflix as the shows added there are well into the syndication phase. There should be plenty of reliable sources that indicate when a show is licensed with simulcast intentions. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Over the course of being on Wikipedia I've seen editors add content to articles written in English from a non-English perspective, when clearly other language Wikipedia websites exist; something I've never understood. This could be due to the fact that such articles do not exist on the other-language versions or simply because en-Wikipedia is incredibly popular. Don't misunderstand, I'm all for including contest, it should just go where it rightfully belongs. On another note, shows usually officially make it to the West firstly via online distribution websites, and due to the nature of the internet, there is no reason not to list them broadcast outlets. Simply having a viewpoint of TV Stations as being only UHF or Cable is way too outdated a train of thought since stations can be streamed online in today's world--and if we're going by that outdated thought of bias against "streaming" then those stations would merit an delist from infoboxes--(Not literally, just a tool to make my point). >> KirtZ^Message 01:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say content that's not from an English-speaking point of view doesn't belong on English Wikipedia? _dk (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see you're about to take this personally; not my intention. I tend to be a bit vague and I apologize. I only mean from the infobox and streaming/licensed perspective and nothing more. Something that Juhachi and Chris touched upon above. >> KirtZ^Message 04:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox wise, and strictly that, Kirtz is correct. DBZ has been broadcast in over 50 nations with over a dozen full dubs, and at least five English dubs have been made of Dragon Ball by itself. It is not really practical to list them all in the infobox. For articles, when the English topic is covered I tend to make a sub section for other releases. Nausicaä_of_the_Valley_of_the_Wind_(film)#Other_language_releases is one such example that lists Spain, France, German, Hungarian, Korean and Chinese releases. All of this is done in one paragraph. Its inclusion is beneficial and not distracting. Some can say UNDUE, but its is never "undue" to mention sourced international releases in a concise format. Back to the main point however, with 40+ distributors and licensees, how can an infobox hold it without becoming an eyesore? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It can't, and that's the main issue. Back when publisher_other was there, it was a collapsible field, both those have fallen out of disuse (MOS:CO), so unless you want an infobox that's 5 times the size of what it is now on articles like DBZ, I don't see why that info must be in the infobox. Keep it in prose, where it can be properly sourced, like Kreb mentioned above.--十八 07:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Scrolling lists and collapsible sections were discouraged a few years back due to WP:ACCESS concerns, but honestly, it's already 2013. Who still uses a Windows 95 machine running Internet Explorer 6.0 to read Wikipedia? Even people using iOS and Android devices are now outnumbering those who genuinely, for some reason (do these people even exist?), have limited CSS and JavaScript support. It's probably about time that the topic is brought to Village Pump again for another discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are people in other countries who may have ridiculously slow connections (Cuba) or otherwise poor internet service, but there's also the point that the vast majority of people have more robust computing than before. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Gundam merge discussion

Hello, there is disagreement about whether Cultural impact of Gundam should be merged into Gundam, the main article for the franchise, and as the participation is very low, any extra input in the discussion here would be much appreciated. Thanks! Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Yuri (genre)#Difference Between Yuri and Shōjo-ai – IS Important!

Opinions from this WikiProject are needed on the discussion linked in this heading. As can be seen, I've already commented on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As shown in this reply, I mistook a registered editor for the IP who started the aforementioned discussion. As such, it seems that there may not be any need for members of this WikiProject to weigh in on this discussion. However, opinions from this project on the matter would obviously still help. Flyer22 (talk)

Japanese knowledge needed Master of Martial Hearts: Help building character profiles

Hi! I found some character profiles for Master of Martial Hearts and archived them here: Talk:Master_of_Martial_Hearts. Since it's in image form I can't run an auto translator on the profiles. Is anyone with Japanese knowledge interested in helping out with beefing up the profiles?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

Could anyone interested comment on this proposed merge: Talk:Space Battleship Yamato#Proposed merge with Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)? TTN (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Terminology Sections in Fiction

I noticed that the terminology section is usually not used by many Wikipedians on other articles due to conflict with WP:OR, but I am still unsure if the terminology section should even be left out regarding its use in Fictional Series such as Symphogear, Valvrave the Liberator and Sword Art Online, since articles for fictional names have been created like the Apocalypse Virus, the Fictional universe of Avatar and the whole loads of Gundam Weapons and MS. Please share your opinion and comments here. Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick glance, and that Apocalypse Virus page really doesn't look like it belongs; it's 100% in-universe plot based, has no references, and does not demonstrate to the reader why it's notable. It seems more suited towards a Wikia site. At least by comparison Fictional universe of Avatar has some sources (though I wouldn't exactly call it "great" either). --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Most jargon can be explained without requiring its own section or omitted in favor of plain English. The obvious counterpoint is Jutsu (Naruto), though I think that page should be deleted. --erachima talk 16:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Having a terminology section means the plot was written in a way that general readers could not understand without a dictionary. All terminology sections in articles have always been a plot expansions and fancruft. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Useless bloating of the article due to WP:FANCRUFT, nothing more. Because of the trend to discourage Terminology sections, I've noticed that casual editors now have a tendency to bloat character sections which just means that much more work when maintaining good standard on an article, since character sections are usually fine with a brief general overview using a few lines and not every-single-plot-detail. —KirtZ^Message 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In Japan, a character is favored more importantly than the plot of a series. Does the English Wikipedia require that the plot needs more elaborated info than the character? Can it not apply to Anime and Manga since there is definitely something that needs to be explained in Fiction when not understandable? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PLOTSUM and WP:WAF summarize what should and should not be in a plot summary, and really, the same goes for character descriptions, which should not attempt to retell the plot by summarizing everything the character did in a series; but instead should be about who the character is in relation to the plot (briefly) and then some expansion on the character's personality. As Kirt pointed out, the typical IP editor on a series page will usually add something to the character section, and if that happens enough times by enough IPs over the course of a series, you can end up with a lot of bloating and plot summary.

And as a small aside to Kirt, I see that you radically expanded the plot on Guilty Crown earlier this year, but writing in so much detail is exactly what PLOTSUM and WAF tell you not to do. I would recommend shortening it down to no more than 3 or 4 paragraphs.--十八 04:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely forgot about Guilty Crown. Don't get me wrong that was supposed to be temporary as shown by the edit summaries; while attempting to bring that article up to a near GA standard by using Shakugan no Shana as a base. I'll get to it eventually, thanks for the reminder by the way.

Anyway, Juhachi is right, with a basic outline of a few lines, character sections are good to go. Especially when taking other related lists which link to a parent article into account since it makes no sense to repeat the same thing twice. To answer your question which still borders on defining terminology- Wikia websites have become increasingly popular over the years and they usually include every single bit of detail (even speculation), the difference is, Wikipedia has set guidelines as aforementioned. —KirtZ^Message 08:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with some explanation on Terminology. To summarize, everything about a series can be included in Wikia, but only information about the Staff behind the series and some basic details are usually only included in Wikipedia. It is kind of difficult to create and improve articles here since I do often get confused with the Guidelines set by Wikipedia. So in writing a plot about fiction, I have to abide by WP:Real world, but is an explanation about objective names given in a series needed, no matter how brief?

On a side note, I read the Guilty Crown plot and its Characters, I don't think I can read the entire details easily considering their massive lengths from excessive minor details. Would be nice to simplify it. Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh... no, that's not a very accurate summary. Wikipedia includes enough plot information for people to know what the thing is about. Terminology sections are generally avoided because it's better to write around and/or explain necessary terminology in-line. This, of course, assumes that the terminology does not become notable in itself, such as mecha. --erachima talk 18:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Comic World Seoul cosplay

For those members of the project who enjoy IDing and categorizing cosplay photos, check out commons:Category:Comic World Seoul. Have fun, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) moved to Yu-Gi-Oh!_Duel_Monsters

Doesn't the MOS ask us to use English titles? Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) had been moved to Yu-Gi-Oh!_Duel_Monsters (Japanese title) without any notice, apparently. The only discussion I know of is Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!_Duel_Monsters#Article_Title WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Referencing Kamui Shirō

I was planning to reference Kamui Shirō but there is a doubt I am having. In List of X chapters there appears to be an issue with the English volumes' release dates. Some volumes like 6 and 10 state they were released earlier than its previous volumes. Could some dates actually refer to the rereleases Viz Media made? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Amazon messes up the dates (Volume 10 Amazon.com Amazon.ca). I'm not sure if there is a re-release since I'm not an expert in that category but here's using wayback for volume 10 states the release date for 2004 Viz source. The sad part is every other internet source contradicts Viz. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that even Viz archives are lacking release dates. The first volumes say 2nd edition. My guess is that Amazon is listing all 2nd edition because it says that Viz released a volumes per month which sounds weird.Tintor2 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So checking ANN encyclopedia it says that Viz released the first X volume in 1996. I guess there were actually two editions but the sites only archived the second.Tintor2 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tail characters

Hello, everyone. It is I, Lord Sjones23, returning from my two-month long semi-retirement. The List of Fairy Tail characters has failed an FLC while I was on break, but I want to get it peer reviewed once again before taking this to FA. If anyone wants to help out, that would be excellent! Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm on a break from the area outside of the GANs, but welcome back! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know of an appropriate image?

Anyone know of an image that would be a good pic for this section? Science_fiction_on_television#Animation - Ideally am thinking of something that shows a major anime artist of sci fi / TV background with some of his/her artwork in the background. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

About List of anime series by episode count

I found a few anime with over 100 total episodes, however they have multiple seasons. In the List of anime series by episode count, it is stated that "This article will only cover series without distinct arc/season names.", and the anime I found have the same name for every season (for example, Zatch Bell!). Does anyone know if they count? Nanomikachan (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo characters

Could anyone familiar with Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo remove some of the minor characters from List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo characters and Villains of Shinsetsu Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo? The lists and character articles should be merged, but I have no idea where to begin in chopping it down to a reasonable size. TTN (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single expert currently in the wikiproject for that. It's usually the reason lots of articles just degrade to the fandom. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yoshiki Tanaka's comments about Tokyo Babylon

I've just found out that novelist Yoshiki Tanaka made an article about Tokyo Babylon. I saw in the Spanish rerelease of the first volume (2011). Does anybody know if it is also used in the English release to see if I can use it as a reference? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: It looks like the rerelease of the first volume has a different cover than the original (it's yellow rather than red) but I don't know if Dark Horse Comics used the same.Tintor2 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Another Case Closed move request

A user is requesting the series be moved to its Japanese English name at Talk:Case Closed#Requested move. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A new request has already been opened.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And speedy closed. Can we get people to agree to disagree and stop putting on frivolous RMs?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not.[8] 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussions

This is a notification that I have started merge discussions at

• Talk:Dragon Ball#Proposed merge with Dragon Ball (anime)
• Talk:Ghost in the Shell#Proposed merge with Ghost in the Shell (manga)

—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue is more about a band of editors unfamiliar with WP:ANIME's standards and norms. We seriously need to consider mediation for such a large scale issue. Ghost in the Shell seems like such an edged-case but Dragon Ball seems to attempt to make an example of it as their also trying to split Bleach anime and manga, and i have a feeling the same method is going to be done, one series at a time.Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your talkpage Lucia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is bigger than just Ryulong/ChrisGualtieri. we need a more permanent consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I had suggested that about a month ago, that something of the sort should be done but it was decided that mediation would be best. Looks like that turned out really well. What bothers me is that it has been 6 months of this. I am still open to making a consensus for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles built on proposals in an RfC format like I had originally suggested to Chris, but am weary of Chris or Ryulong editing in the process as right now there are two active heated merge discussions and a AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to get it resolved. Ryulong backed out of mediation. Sven's RFC should be binding. I've repeatedly stated that I am in favor of single articles on anime and manga for the majority of articles. What of FLCL, Cowboy Bebop and Trigun. The Bleach anime has 111 episodes of original content yet zero coverage in Bleach manga. If everyone stopped trying to paint me as some bad guy, perhaps everyone would realize that I've actually merged more articles than I've split. Exceptions for 100+ episodes or widely differing storylines should merit such splits. Sven notes we both have good intentions - but as long as there is this fomenting of partisan politics nothing is going to get done and its just gonna end up making A&M and the rest of Wikipedia suffer. That's why I want an absolute and binding RFC on such a simple and core dispute. I'd be willing to go to Arb Com, but I feel that no one here even understands what I am saying - or tries to, to be perfectly frank. I don't even do a lot in this area yet every time I do something everyone comes out with personal attacks, edit warring and hostility. It is a sad state, but communication and calmness is needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did the proper procedures of splitting articles, I personally would see you as an editor who knows proper etiquette, rather than a loose canon. Do you understand how subjective your method is? If its over 100 episodes, it deserves its own page? You're no different from Dream Focus when he said "it made a million dollars therefore...". Theres more to it than that.

The little you claim to do is about splits and merges. You don't gain consensus before these things, and this is why we're here talking about it. Just because you provided a system for your self, doesn't mean the entire wikiproject should follow.Lucia Black (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Split says, "A contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split." With 111 episodes of original content that nary a peep is covered, surely this is not "manga" material and is instead its own topic. Now. I don't much like your personal attacks. Perhaps you'd give me the decency of hearing me out before you insult me and paint me as some "boogieman". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is named "Bleach (manga)" because that's the original media of the series, and Bleach by itself is already taken by the literal one. So just because it has "manga" as the disambiguation, doesn't mean the anime has to be split off. The majority is indeed still most of merging individual information from specific list and main article. Some of it completely redundant, in which i believe WPCFORK WP:NOPAGE is all about. Don't think for a minute I don't understand you're reasoning because I do. But don't think i agree with it either. 100 pages is completely "SUBJECTIVE". And you should be looking for a more general approach if you wish to find some "line" between notable or not. But WP:ANIME has always been about coverage, and how much is truly needed to be covered as the primary topic over the list-articles. So it avoids unnecessary amount of splits that covers the same thing.

Also consider the relationship between anime/manga compared to western spin-off media. Anime and manga work coherently the majority of the time, and its usually because that's because most original manga strive for a direct anime adaptation. so the majority of the anime is still directly dependent to the original manga's notability. So Bleach (anime)'s coverage on "Analysis" is completely related to the manga just as it is to the anime. It did not change anything.

And that advice is meant for the one "reverting", it does not say "it is allowed to cause an edit war over it" or "if you personally contest to the revert, you may revert that edit regardless and just have to accept it." The initial revert is still completely allowed and should be contested by discussing it first. Discouraged to revert in the first place? maybe, but completely acceptable. Which is something that needs to be respected. If one reverts an entire split without consensus, then by BRD rule, you would have to discuss it before undoing that revert. Its called respect toward other members edits.

I will say there should be an exception to allowing splits between anime and manga. If you are willing, i shall provide my idea of what a split should be allowed.Lucia Black (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll hear you out. But you are not listening to me. This has to be a two-way street and if you are closing yourself off to me, then nothing will be accomplished. Ryulong did this at mediation - I don't want a repeat. I listen, give my response and you listen to me in turn. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless you state a misunderstanding somewhere, don't accuse me not "listening". I've read and addressed "everything" you have stated. If there's a misunderstanding, then clarify. Otherwise it's going to be an endless cycle of "you're not listening to me" when the reality is much different. At the moment i will provide a different subheading to this compromise of whats split-worthy.Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about it, its not the productive area of discussion. I await your subsection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to handle splits

I believe our current system works in a variety of ways. Reasons why current version works majority of the time:

A) It avoids unnecessary splits for articles that simply doesn't have enough information. Most of the information of anime adaptations will fall into episode/season and any general production can still be part of the main primary article.

B) It helps express the relationship between the manga/animes if their together. Unlike other media, manga and anime are usually serialized coherently. With the exception of fillers, the anime series is usually intended to follow the manga's plot.

C)(and part of this is connected to B) The majority of the information is just too redundant, the plot and review are mirror to the manga. and because manga and anime are so interwoven together (not just random pieces of media) it makes sense not to split them.

D) Not as helpful for readers anyways. Other than production info, the entire article is all about information that is either 1) already split into part of a list article (cast=characters/season table=season article) or 2) based mainly on information of the original media. 3) Able to fit unilaterally with other information already available. Hypothetically, lets say i wanted to look up "Dragon Ball" anime and as a first time reader, but i just type in "Dragon Ball" and instead takes me to an article that puts "manga" in the lead first, and anime in the adaptation secondary. But overall, i still get the same information i was looking for. The plot, the reception, and because of proper splitting, anything specific about the anime (such as seasons and voice cast) can be found in other list articles.

But now, for the most important part: What should we split?

Here's the proposal: We only split if 1) differs significantly from the original media to be considered two different series. 2) Has substantial amount of "new" and "independent" information that is not too trivial or trivially elongated. (new meaning information that is not available already in list-articles information. independent meaning information that is not relevant to the original media. but to further clarify i'll give an example: "censorship" of dragon ball anime wouldn't be independent to dragon ball if Dragon Ball manga also had censorship. Or Bleach "analysis" would still be dependent to the plot of the manga, as the anime is an "adaptation" of it) 2.5) if significantly different between media, coverage of these differences must be covered extensively in order to make certain dependent sections "independent" (meaning hypothetically a censorship section may be "independent" if it covers only information exclusive to one of the adaptation such as filler episodes).

So for example: if Fullmetal Alchemist anime covered significant amount of new information related to the differences of the second half of the anime such as interviews from the one who thought up the story, why it was necessary and such and such, and coverage of the reviews of the ending, it can be an independent article.Lucia Black (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

On another note, if this is agreed, i still believe the proper procedure is adding this new/independent information to the main article until proven to have enough coverage to be its own article. So whether this is supported or denied, i still contest against radical splits.Lucia Black (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I'll settle for the RFC because its binding. Because I do not like how cast, production, music and such are "trivial" here. Even the issue about the censorship is so ridiculously complicated in full that it simply is confusing to go "in Dragon Ball manga... in Dragon Ball anime... in Dragon Ball Z.... in Dragon Ball GT." Then when you get to the next heading do it all over again. I think the fact that 111 episodes of Bleach not getting covered is pretty clear as "trivial" or "filler" is indicative of the inherent biases and disdain for the subject matter. If you don't like the topic and think poorly of it; why edit it at all? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That question is out of line, and i will not answer it because it is irrelevant and provoking. and therefore, i will save it for future purposes. For now, you completely misread the proposal if you're claiming "production" is "trivial".Lucia Black (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even say anything bad, I merely quoted what was said while such content is removed. Even today the cast list was stripped out of Dragon Ball. I'm sticking to the binding RFC. Cause your solution is A&M's status quo and contains no provision or binding resolution to the problem. You called my 100+ mergers as "subjective" which shows that communication has failed and I'm done dealing it with. RFC or ArbCom. Talk has done nothing in 10 months - I'll let the community decide. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see anything "bad" in your question, than maybe you need to work on your comments before posting until you do see it. if a comment is meant to "provoke" or "insult" than it is bad. It's not necesary at all to ask me a question that assumes i don't like it or have a poor opinion on it.

Just to clarify though, we have featured articles that don't cover neither characters nor cast(and these articles have anime as the primary topic too) because it the plot can be used as the summary of those relevant characters since the more relevant ones will be covered there and cast is more relevant in the character article as well. (and just to further clarify just in case, because i know how discussions go: Our Featured articles are small, not because the system of WP:ANIME is broken, but lack of coverage and editors). It has nothing to do with "trivial" or "filler" (Which only proves even further you skimmed through the proposal if you didn't understand what "filler" meant). And yes, 100+ episodes is incredibly subjective, its an incredibly subjective and specific line between splits, there are other variables to consider and its all about "coverage" which is what my proposal is all about. finding enough coverage that deviates from both the original media to allow the adaptation to gain its own article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any harm from proposing a split, but of course everyone needs to agree on that, don't we? There are some series that earn a spin-off series that is related to the original, like for example Negima! Magister Negi Magi and Negima!?, but some sections can also each earn an article for itself such as Jutsu (Naruto) and Mobile weapons, but well that's my opinion. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the series, it's all about coverage that makes it independent from the original. FOr example: Lets say leac is known for having really good fillers, coverage like that could help make it independent. or if the director of the anime wanted to deviate from the story. expansion such as that. But this is only for anime TV series/manga series (series that are told in a long-term series). this is not connected to a film adaptation such as (Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind).

Although i personally believe Negima!?/Negima! Magister Negi Magi can be separate, there is still lack of sourcing. But at least theres enough substantial ammount of adaptations related to it to keep it that we know can be sourced (such as simply verifying that the media exist would be enough). But my proposal is still about being careful before even considering the split so that we get quality, well-written articles faster. Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• You still are not consistent or making a rationale argument here. 300+ episodes with 100+ episodes of original content = no article, 1 movie containing 1/30th the content = article. And you seem to think my earlier argument was about you, as in personally, when I've stated that the A&M editors that populate this page make irrational arguments and call very important information and original content as "trivial" or "filler" or "bloating". This is why the RFC is necessary because the project has no consistency and no definitions or attempt to establish layout standards or comply with wider Wikipedia policy. It is forced limitations, deletions and marginalization to prevent comprehensive coverage under the insulting claim of "fancruft". No one seems to listen to me, so why bother, if you won't listen to an expert - who will you listen to? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making such offensive accusations to this project. You simply don't understand our goals and standards compared to your own. It doesn't mean we're going against policy. The proposed rationale i provided has nothing to do with "episode-count". 100+ original content out of 300+ may not be properly covered in sources or be large enough to be covered as a whole. There are series out there that have literally 3 to 7 minute episodes that lead up to 500+ episodes and most of the time the story does not move forward at all. Which is why coverage on those 100+ content is needed. therefore if there is enough coverage that can't be moved to list article, than it may be split. again, air-quoting "fillers" only makes it that much more obvious you didn't carefully read the information.

I've seen "bloated" information before too. information that is perfectly acceptable but written in such a way where it bloats up the relevance rather than simply informing them what the source says.

And not all anime films are notable, but most of the time films have their own ways of making it to their own article. For example: their not in episode form such as TV series to have it split into a separate list article. So "all" production information stays in one page. If no production information can be added (and plot too as often they deviate from the original telling) than it can be moved. But the majority of TV series production is directly related to season by season, and often times there's no overall production information.

So again....all based on "coverage" not "episode-count". And another thing, if you claim to be an expert, than by all means improve the articles without splitting in order to prove they need to be split. This starts because you simply want us to take your word for it. We can't do that. Whatever you're claiming, you have to prove, before any splits or merges.Lucia Black (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that no one here has to be an expert in order to edit. Everything we're arguing about here Chris is about structure and decisions to when a split is appropriate.

And further clarification to why Films are different is because films don't always need to summarize the plot unlike Anime series and manga series. this is why episode-count is subjective. For a film, even if its based entirely on a fraction of another series (manga/anime), that plot is still different and might even be told different. example: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. We can't summarize the plot further and direct it to the original manga because the original media may cover broader plot that doesn't really cover the specific plot the film does. Not only that, but not all films are adaptations, often times they are just different stories unrelated to the original media.

Still, when it comes to anime and manga, they will both need to summarize the plot. and often times they are exactly the same summary. And for mentioning fancruft, that's only when going into detail on plot information that might no be helpful to the average first-time reader.

Another thing to notice is that the differences from most manga to anime adaptations is that manga/novel to film adaptation isn't something entirely based on the popularity of the manga/novel. For series such as Kiki's Delivery Service, Howl's Moving Castle, and The Sky Crawlers. All based on books, but also note that the creation of the film was not subject to the popularity of them. Which is why most confuse these to be original series. Regardless, this is why we must first understand the relationship between anime and manga (with coverage) instead of making some form of systemic bias format (if it meets 100+ episodes it needs its own article).Lucia Black (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Kagerou Project

I claimed it for WP:ANIME but I'm still concerned about the songs; they make up the base of the whole series. They satisfy WP:VERIFY and this is the second Anime and Manga Article that is based on a song, after Black Rock Shooter, but I'm unsure if the article is written in a good format. Please comment on this. Thank you. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look.Lucia Black (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bumblezellio: Well for one, theres no information on the history/development of the songs. So the song list just seems to be there. Look for more information or interviews on them. When were they released/aired. And several other aspects. I may look into it aswell if i can. Other than that maybe some form of reeception or legacy. Possibly airdates and how many views they received. i'm not entirely sure myself on what this is. If more information on the series was brought up, i could point more to the right direction, but basically there needs more information on this song series.Lucia Black (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a background to describe how the songs/PVs came about, and the character design (originally just the stock vocaloids) and how it was later packaged with a series of light novels coupled with more defined characters. If there's a way to list the songs more like a discography if it was put on a label, that would be helpful. Details concerning each song should be backed up with liner notes or critical reception. The way it is currently organized, it makes it seem like the light novels came first, which is why I had thought the song list should have been more of a soundtrack instead of the other way around. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Turning List of Sailor Moon Soundtracks into Music of Sailor Moon

Considering there's enough production information on the music itself of Sailor Moon in the main Sailor Moon article, and the original manga author being involved, i suggest we move the information there and give a brief summary of it in the main article (freeing up some space) and renaming it to "Music of Sailor Moon".Lucia Black (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should anime and manga adaptations of the same work share a page or be split into multiple articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following is a binding RfC to resolve the issue laid out in the "Background" section, below. Please only edit in Comments section or any sections created below it. Do not edit the background or the statements by Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri.

Please stay civil and on topic. The scope of this RfC is strictly the issue of whether anime and manga adaptations from the same franchise should be covered on one page or several. The conduct issues between those debating that question are NOT within the scope of this RfC.

Background

Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are both long time editors in the area of manga and anime. Over the past several months their disagreement over whether anime and manga adaptations of the same work should share a page or whether they should be split into multiple articles has evolved into a series of increasingly heated arguments, which has led to several AN/I threads and has poisoned the atmosphere around manga and anime articles on Wikipedia. It is important to note that while the primary disputants in this case are are Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, there are several other editors that frequently comment in these disputes, and that some those editors have made comments that have further inflamed the issue.

The purpose of this RfC is to resolve the content dispute that is at the heart of this, with the understanding that if that is resolved, the user conduct issues will fade. Both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri have agreed to hold a binding RfC to resolve the issue. The purpose of this RfC is not to discuss the user conduct issues. While it may seem that the content dispute and the conduct issues are inseparable, but they are. Shifting the focus of this RfC to a 'who wronged whom' discussion will doom the RfC to fail and will do nothing to solve the underlying content dispute, which will continue to cause problems.

The first section of this RfC will consist of statements by Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri that lay out their position on the argument. The second section will be a discussion of their positions, and of any other positions that editors have, with the aim of selecting a resolution to the question that as a broad consensus. If a clear consensus develops for one position or the other, that will be the resolution. If a consensus fails to develop for one position or another, the community should begin drafting compromise proposals and seeing if any of those develop consensus.

Many of the editors involved in this dispute have spent months bickering, and it has become 'personal' for some of them. Because of the potential for this to spiral out of control, the RfC will be carefully monitored to ensure that this does not become another forum for continued interpersonal attacks. Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri have agreed to limit their participation in the second section of this RfC in order to head off the possibility of additional fighting. Please feel free to ask them for clarifications to the points they made in the first section, but don't ask them to comment on each other's positions. That's the place of the larger community to discuss.

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

While it may seem to be good idea to keep many anime and manga articles together, it is not always ideal. Would you combine all notable adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to one page? What of Hamlet? What of Harry Potter? What of Lord of the Rings? What of Spiderman, Transformers, the list goes on. Each article needs its own notability to stand alone, but that is not questioned in this dispute. It is the presumption that notable adaptations are not worthy of detailed coverage, and that goes against the detail portion of summary style. The dispute is not on cases of small adaptations of 13 or 26 episodes, but sprawling and multi-million and multi-billion dollar franchises. The Dragon Ball manga has sold more books than all 300+ Star Wars novels put together; over 230 million volumes in total. The anime adaptations of Dragon Ball comprise 500 episodes; which have aired in over 50 nations and dubbed no less than 20 times. But not all adaptations are faithful; the anime of Bleach has over 100 episodes of original content – not covered in the manga – and whose plot and production was non-existent because it was deemed unnecessary. Its removal results in a lost of knowledge and the needless limitation of one topic so that the original dominates the coverage or mixes the two together into an incomprehensible and jarring form.

Once notability is established, the adaptation's differences, cast, production, music, and reception are all worthy of discussion. Currently, the all-in-one pages result in the adaptation's coverage being cut or removed until only a “list of episodes” remains. A separate page resolves this content and focus conflict. While there is no need to have splits for every adaptation, actively barring separate articles is bad for Wikipedia and it has been the Anime and Manga WikiProject's stance for years. Even if you do not care about anime or manga – these articles contain many of Wikipedia's most popular pages and the adaptation is the most familiar media to the international audience. Support separate articles for notable adaptations so that they can be detailed and comprehensive without being cut down to a mere subtopic of the original media.

Statement by Ryulong

My position is fairly simple. For ease in presenting topics on anime and manga that only differ in whether one is on paper or on television, a single page is all that is really needed to discuss them. It is not necessary to produce two articles on what is essentially the same topic because there are reliable sources that contain critical reception of one form of the media rather than the other when it is rarely ever critical reception that applies only to that form (such as animation quality or artwork). The only reason that there exists this divide in sources (from what I have seen) is that the anime version becomes more popular in English, thus producing the plethora of sources that solely discuss the English version of the anime adaptation. This should not be a metric by which a new article is produced from what was previously a two-in-one page. And what is left finds its place at the character lists (casting), chapter lists (publishing dates), and episode lists (broadcast dates and for some reason theme songs).

There are also issues concerning the idea of a "franchise page" which I disagree with, but I am not sure about ChrisGualtieri's current stance on this as it is not addressed in his statement on this RFC.

Comments

Please stay civil and on topic. The scope of this RfC is strictly the issue of whether anime and manga adaptations from the same franchise should be covered on one page or several. The conduct issues between those debating that question are NOT within the scope of this RfC.

• I am going remain neutral on this matter, as I suggested and coordinated this RfC, so it would be improper for me to take sides now. I would, however, like to make a few observations. 1) The area in dispute here seems rather small. The disagreement isn't over every franchise, but only the largest franchises - the ones with several series of manga or anime within the same franchise, or several manga adaptations of the same series, and so on. I'm not an expert in the area, but there can't be more than a few dozen that are that big. With that in mind, I think it's important to realize that this isn't an RfC on the entirety of manga and anime coverage, but rather of a definable subsection of it. 2) Despite all of the bickering, it's clear that there is a mutual respect and a desire for reconciliation between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, which is the biggest reason why I think such an RfC has the possibility of being successful. As I said at the AN/I thread, these are both long time, positive contributors that are looking to do what they view as the best for the project, and they both have solid rationales for their beliefs. I would ask that participants keep these things in mind, and give the issue the consideration it deserves. Simply regurgitating old arguments will get us nowhere, the involved parties, all of them, not just Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, need to put aside their animosity and look for a solution here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• From a standpoint of fiction, I would consider how much of a difference there is in the manga and the anime (as well as which came first). If the two works are intended to be close mirrors of each other, which the larger plot is nearly the same in both, but certainly smaller scenes or characters have been dropped due to the brevity of the medium, it doesn't make sense to separate the two, since the plot, concept and themes, and development will nearly the same; the absence of a character can be noted in character list. When the anime and manga diverge significantly, then yes, it makes sense to treat them as separate entities, with the one that was published first considered the "parent" (which I understand is almost always the manga). I would still expect in either case that between all the articles on the anime/manga that there will be a character list, a list of episodes, and a list of books (whether separate articles or not, that doesn't matter). So basically, it should be treated case by case, with no single solution that works across the board. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I know nothing about anime and manga so consider my viewpoint the stance of someone coming to a article to learn something about it. My main concerns are that it is well-written, coherent (all holds together without tangents) and readable. By the last term, I simply mean that it goes into enough detail to be interesting but isn't so lengthy so that it seems overwhelming and I start to lose interest. Assuming the first two factors are solid, in light of your debate, it's really a matter of how much material you are working with. Can it all fit neatly into a page? Then, keep it together. Are you talking about a franchise that has multiple TV series or game lines? That would be too much content for one article so split it up. I'm seriously just talking about a simple word count. Think of your reader and how much they want to read in one sitting.
  

What I'm arguing against is that there doesn't have to be one decision. I know that because of all of the arguments, there is the desire to make a binding decision that will settle things once and for all but I think this needs to be considered case by case, and you need to get over this idea that it is a polarity ("all together" or "everything separate"). An article on a TV series could have a section on music included within it if it is an incidental factor unless it is substantial enough to warrant a separate article. This just seems like common practice with other TV series and I'm not sure why anime or manga would be any different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my mind, I keep envisioning a page entitled "Bleach" with two major sections, one for the anime and one for the manga. I don't see why these can't be on one page, even if the page gets fairly long in length. That'd be a uniform way of moving forward, and if somebody is looking up a particular anime or manga, why not provide one place instead of two to navigate to? It feels like it's more of a service to have them together, but that's just my take and I understand why there may be disagreement in this issue. GRUcrule (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I feel like Anime and manga have a completely different relationship between eachother compared to any other media outside of japan. the majority of the time gaining an anime series based of a manga/light novel series is a milestone for such manga/light novel series. Its much more informative to keep both in the same page connected rather than to keep them separate. In which i believe bring more needed context for such. Also one would argue different media and same plot doesn't cause much for independent information if the reception and majority of the production is still based on the original media's plot. Especially for ongoing series, the vast summary of both would be virtually the same. resulting in a redundant fork that just happens to say their two different medias.

Another thing i find is how based on episode count, which is something completely not relevant to notability. As previously stated, its just systemic bias to base any notability on such qualities that don't really prove anything other than subjectivity. Example: a 20+ episode series adaptation that deviates completely from the original media can be more notable on its own than a 300+ episode series that falls faithful to the original media precisely. Most of the time both manga and anime are considered as mainly the same subject. Another thing to note is that WP:ANIME does revisions and acceptable to avoid any unnecessary splits by moving more specific content that would bloat up the article in more relevant pages.

At the moment, i agree that there should be some leeway for specific situations in a series that deserve a split and is needed to provide more context in the overall series. I don't agree with Chris's method. it's far too broad, and wont provide the context needed. For example: Case Closed is just fine despite having over 22 seasons. Even if the main page needed to expand in order to fit WP:SUMMARYSTYLE it wouldn't be as much due to subsequent list-articles.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• My main issue with separate articles is that much of the content on both articles would oftentimes apply to the series as a whole (both the manga and anime), so having them separate does not make much sense. The plot of an anime adaptation is almost always faithful to the original media, and unless it is completely different, it would be unnecessary to list the plot on two articles. And besides, even with over 100+ episodes of "original content" in Bleach, those episodes are not important to the overall plot of the series (they're what are known as "filler" episodes for the uninitiated) so you wouldn't include a summary of those episodes in a succinct plot summary of the anime. To put it another way, WP:PLOTSUM recommends cutting anything unnecessary and just provide the main points of the plot in a summary.

Next would be any analysis or critical reception. More often than not, both of these would apply to both media, because they discuss the series' story, so even if you have some reliable source discussing a critical analysis of an anime adaptation, as long as that anime is faithful to the original media, any such comments would thus also apply to the manga, so keeping the information in one article makes more sense. As for the cast info, I believe that should be listed only in the character list (which in cases such as these will almost always already exist), and keeping a separate, smaller list in an article on the anime would be unnecessary. I also don't see why any release information couldn't go in an "anime" subsection in a larger "media" section on one article, and any spill-over could go into the separate episode list. The same would apply with a chapter/volume list for a manga. Even any music information could easily go into said "media" section, and if you wanted to go further, create a list of albums and/or discography.

So the only thing I see intrinsically different would be an in-depth section on production. If such information cannot be provided or is simply unavailable, I see no reason why there should be separate articles on a manga and its adaptation, per what I noted above.--十八 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Given my experience as a veteran project member for over 6 years, my contention with anime and manga articles is that even though manga and anime articles are fine together, I don't think it can be accomplished with just adaptations of work being split off. For example, One Piece (English adaptation) was merged into One Piece due to lack of notability and sourcing. Episode count unfortunately does not inherit notability, because most of the time, the anime and manga share the same story. I would agree with Juhachi's comments above as well as Masem's and Ryulong's, I think if the anime/manga adaptations stay fairly close, then we can keep it in an individual article. But if the anime (such as a film) is considerably different to the manga, then it should be a separate entity. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I will be providing three subheadings for the !votes. With only comments and not subheadings, it will be difficult for the closer to summarize, and more difficult for the participants to agree that the closer has followed consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think that anyone wants this issue to go to ArbCom. However, if this issue goes back to the noticeboards again, it will eventually wind up in ArbCom, a less toxic way to deal with it than continuing inconclusive quarreling at the noticeboards. (Continuing inconclusive quarreling at the noticeboards frustrates and angers everyone. An ArbCom proceeding will probably result in the antagonists being topic-banned.) Since both of the antagonists finally want to get this issue resolved, please all help get this issue resolved by reaching a consensus on the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly what is the difference between an anime series that is 13 episodes vs one with 500+ episodes as far as production and other associated content goes? Does more episodes mean that there is more real world content that is encyclopedic and isn't an extended plot summary? So far, I have not see any indications of that being the case. I can understand why the editors who work on anime and manga tend to consolidate that information into one article, to reduce the amount on in-universe and duplication between articles. And the fact that they split off the list of episodes and lists of characters generally reduces the need to split the main article further. What more is there to summarized that wouldn't fit into the main article or one its associated episode and character lists? Just because other areas of Wikipedia have chosen to create duplicate articles does that mean that such organizational format is always desirable, or even the best way to organize such information. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As for the Bleach (anime) someone mentioned above, I'd like to quote the article where it says "The anime ran for a total of 366 episodes including 111 episodes of original material not based on the manga." So its not just an animated version of the manga. It also has a different production section, information about the music, and a nice size reception section concerning the anime itself, not the manga. No reason to eliminate this anime article just because 2/3rds of the episodes were based on the manga. Dream Focus 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

One article per franchise

• Agree if the adaptations are not each notable or not distinctively unique. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose You shouldn't try to eliminate articles just because you want it all on one page. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources, then there is no reason not to make a separate article for it. That way it can expand over time and have its own reception section. Dream Focus 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment @Dream Focus: the reason is if we really need it to inform the reader the best way we can. Which means why have two, if the majority is still the same subject? the music section is a bit lengthy, but that can be solved. i guess the core is "if its inevitable, then we split".Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  The material written is different, and wouldn't all fit in the manga article, nor is there any reason to shove all of it there. Dream Focus 00:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple articles, one for each adaptation

It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation

• Support - If the different adaptations are significantly different and each can justify their own article, multiple articles. Notability should not be enough as such if the adaptations are essentially the same. Uniqueness, e.g., plot or character differences, matter. Otherwise one article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Simply because this is still aligned with 1 article franchise (even though i'm sure that we would argue if we considered it a franchise). I'm sure Ryulong never believed that having one article is absolute.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Depends on the situation. If the anime and manga follow the same plot and have the same characters with fairly minor differences, as is usually the case, there's really not much reason to have a second article. There's also no need for a second article if one or the other has a different plot but is minor sidestory type stuff (in this case, the lesser work should be summarised in the article on the greater work). Less commonly, the anime and manga are truly different and better covered seperately (see Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind for an example). When it comes to huge media franchises with numerous different anime and manga series which tell different or overlapping stories, it's best to seperate them to avoid confusion--a good example of this kind of set of articles is Evangelion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my statement above. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support As a lot of people seem to be saying here, not every anime/manga is exactly alike. Some anime series follow the manga series to great detail while others start to differ after a number of episodes. Case in point: Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The first anime was initially based on the manga but starts its own story while the second anime follows the manga as closely as possible. While material in the article about the manga also applies to the second anime, it only applies to the first for about 60%.

Now other series would follow the exact same plot as in the manga and it would seem pointless to have a separate article for the manga and the anime since the text is basically repeated. So when it comes to deciding whether a topic requires more than one article it's a judgment call. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per what I said above. My main concern is reducing redundancy and keeping information that could pertain to multiple forms of media (plot, analysis, reception) in one place. I also feel an in-depth section on production would be essential for any adaptation that is split into its own article, lest it desolve into being a repository for in-universe info.--十八 08:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the reasonings by Juhachi, Lucia Black and myself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Everyone here seems to be on the same wavelength, and since I agree what my fellow editors have outlined above, I won't repeat them. However I will say that it is only logical to decide whether articles be split or merged depending on their own level of uniqueness. Creating a regulation that adamantly dictates whether articles be either split or merged without regard for the aforementioned sounds to me like cutting a puzzle piece to make it fit a spot. Sure, it'll fit—but at the cost of quality. —KirtZ^Message 14:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support This issue gets even more complicated when you get into a series like the Sailor Moon franchise, which in addition to anime and manga, has an extensive history of live-action television and stage shows, which may or may not follow pre-existing plots. Like many of these major franchises, Sailor Moon also has video games and soundtracks as well, which adds yet more potential confusion. Sailor Moon does also have an "English Adaptations" section as well, since it's a series that's known to have been heavily modified in the original US English release. In order to summarize all of the Sailor Moon franchise in a single article there is a single primary page that is subsequently spun off into four "See Also" pages and three linked "Main Article" pages. I have used Sailor Moon here as an example, but it's not the only franchise for which there is this kind of proliferation of media. While having a single page for a major franchise can provide a starting point, it's pretty difficult for it to cover all of the information that people may want to access. Metheglyn (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  If I might interject, with your example of Sailor Moon, only the manga and anime would share a single page. Any other derivative media, like PGSM or the musicals would get their own articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• If there is enough valid unique content to fill a separate article, that meets notability guidelines, then there is no reason not to have it. Even if an anime was based on a manga, and wasn't filled with a lot of filler episodes, it has its own reception section, information about its music, its voice actors, who released the series, how well it did, and information about it. No one was saying you should just split something simply because you felt like it. If you only had a small paragraph you could think to write about, then it could fit in another article, but that isn't really the case with any notable series. Dream Focus 01:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• The problem is that most of the time, the information can be divided and put into a more relevant spin-off article such as List of episodes and List of characters and even more recently, discography/music/list of [series X] soundtracks. Plus the relationship between anime and manga can be explained better together. So unless the information "NEEDS" to be present in the main article, and there's absolutely no way it can't be moved anywhere else, AND the information that inevitably stays it too lengthy, than the split can be done.Lucia Black (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is exactly my view. It’s a case-by-case decision; there should be no absolute black-or-white rule. If an adaptation differs wildly from the original, and both are sufficiently notable, there’s no reason not to have an article on each. —Frungi (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per common sense. Cavarrone 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Metrics or further guidance

There seems to be a pretty clear consensus that this issue should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. While it is certainly good to see an agreement at the broader conceptual level, it would be nice to be able to offer up some metrics or further guidance for the future, as that might mitigate future conflicts. In essence Where should the line be between a shared article and a split one? What kinds of elements contribute to having split articles, and what kinds of elements don't? Should an anime adaptation with filler content not from the manga be handled differently from an anime adaptation with different major plot elements from the manga? Do the size / length / popularity / number of adaptations / amount of scholarly attention / etc. come into play or not? It might not be possible to build a set of metrics; we might end up just having to have talk page discussions every time, but it's worth seeing if we can find common ground in this area while we're here. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• In short, I'd like to see a page size of around 50kb with cast, music and other elements of the production. I'd like to see plot deviations discussed for original arcs for works like Bleach. As my focus is on franchises grossing more than $100 million and of comparatively large size; I think this is a sensible and reasonable means of drawing a line. These also include the "big three" One Piece, Bleach and Naruto as well as Dragon Ball. Things like Legend of Galactic Heroes are also greatly impacted by this "all in one set up", but unlike this dispute, there is not enough content to advocate a split until such a time that the production aspects can be covered properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• And I think such an article isn't necessary. As described above in #Comments, plot summary should be minimal. An article solely dedicated to the anime should not be split off simply because you can produce a production section or because it had a filler arc and pad it with cast (replicated by the list of character pages) or music (which is either given its own discography or list of albums article or integrated into the episode lists). Much of what has been put at Bleach (anime) is redundant to several other pages, and is only at such a length because of the redundancies and a glut of sources regarding production and the English adaptation. This case by case basis treatment should be applied (as it is currently) to pages like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex being separate from Ghost in the Shell and Saint Seiya Omega separate from Saint Seiya.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed with Ryulong. At the moment we should see case by case. I think the line is distinct enough any more and we get to get closer to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.Lucia Black (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think it depends on how long/notable the anime is for the series. If it airs 1 or 2 seasons, then I'm not so sure it was notable enough to warrant its own article. If it's a long-running one (such as Bleach, Naruto, etc. etc.) then there is PLENTY to work with for another article, including separate plot twists, spin-offs, movies, etc. EDIT: I'll just throw out an arbitrary number: Three seasons. If the anime goes three seasons, give it a standalone unless determined by authors more knowledgeable than myself that its unnecessary. GRUcrule (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  This is what the episode lists are for though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  This is exactly what the problem is, trying to find an arbitrary number of seasons or sales that don't exactly cover what makes it independent from the other series. I've provided a very long, specific, yet clear way to do it.

  It merely depends on how much new information there is. If there is any large significant amount (i'm going to say about over' 4-3 solid paragraphs per each section such as "plot" and "production" and maybe "reception") of original independent info that can't be moved to either A)List of characters or B) List of episodes C) discography/music/list of soundtrack articles.

  So if there is a list of characters, we cover the cast in that list (regardless if it has its own article or not). If there is a large range of soundtracks, we cover them in a list of soundtracks. if there is overarching seasons, we cover them in an overall season page of episodes and divide it by individual season articles.

  But this includes true different direction from the original. So potentially Fullmetal Alchemist and Rozen Maiden can be separate their original anime from their manga counterpart if there's enough information provided.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  I think Lucia Black's proposal is the best I've seen. I do think some sort of numerical standard (whether it be paragraphs or words of new information, or something to determine notability - some hard-and-fast number for reference) will clear things up substantially, though I know that's difficult to determine exactly what. 3-4 paragraphs of standalone information seems like a solid direction. GRUcrule (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not knowing the subject area, I can't make a statement on what is the "right" size. But having worked with people in disputes (off-wiki), I encourage the adoption of acceptable ranges rather than specific numbers. If you settle on an exact size (like 50kb), there will be subsequent arguments if, say, someone has a page that is 53 kb. Whether it is size or number of sections (as in Lucia Black's proposal), providing a "target range" rather than an exact number will reduce the number of future conflicts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Does any one else have another method? or have any issues with the current ones presented so that we can modify them?Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  A numerical limit does not solve anything, and in fact causes more problems. Most of the commentors here have already agreed that things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Why is this now suddenly an option?—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  @Ryulong: I agree on case by case, but there should also be an acceptable range to "consider" splitting especially when they are series meant to follow the original plot as close as possible.Lucia Black (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  Although i would like it only be case by case, its unfortunate that some would attempt to abuse the system if we simply allowed every anime adaptation into consideration. Perhaps Juhachi, Sjones23, Masem, Dream Focus, KirtZJ and Starblind can weigh in their opinion 9and anyone i forgot to mention). Just to speed things along.Lucia Black (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I like the gist of Lucia Black's proposal, but I think it necessary that said 3-4 paragraphs be reliably sourced and non-trivial. I could write 4 paragraphs about my breakfast this morning if I really had to, and the last thing we need is folks padding out articles with trivia just to justify their existance. As another angle, what if we made having a different creative direction be the standard for a seperate article? Many anime/manga have filler episodes, cut content, or story changes for pacing or censorship reasons but are essentiially the same work in a different medium and best covered together. To use a non-anime example, the original TMNT comic and the 80s cartoon show had the same core group of characters but were otherwise totally different in plot, character, and tone and it would be nearly impossible to write a coherent article covering both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  Well, sounds good. And yes, i'm well aware of how "bloated" certain information can appear. but its difficult to cover filler episodes extensively when they can be done to just a couple of sentences per filler season. A good example of a non-notable, media adaptation that doesn't meet the difference this is FLCL and its manga that doesn't follow the exact OVA, and even a completely different art style. but regardless, there is little information on it. if production and release history and reception can be expanded, maybe some extensive plot differences can be too. sometimes highlighting in-universe difference isn't worth it too if there's no out-of-universe information to back up its detailed relevance. So if intentional story-telling differences and significant changes can be sourced, then the plot differences can be explained extensively.Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I’m afraid I don’t think any hard-and-fast rules or numbers are practically useful here. I don’t think there’s any objective way to determine whether an adaptation is “worthy” of its own article. Personally, if production and filler details were all that a standalone article would have to offer, I’d say to scrap it. But if the adaptation specifically had a massive effect on pop culture, I’d think that alone might be enough to justify an article (which would naturally include production and filler details). —Frungi (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Frungi: well, there is a large scale that many fall in the same place, i think we can make a general guide that allows exceptions "on rare occasion".Lucia Black (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    I hope so, and I hope everyone can agree to and abide by it. Godspeed. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    • Nonsense. By saying "on rare occasions" is meaningless, since people insist on going by the guidelines regardless. It passes the General Notability Guidelines, and there is enough unique content to fill its own article, then no reason not to have an article for it. Simple. Any guideline you pass will be used as an excuse to argue nonstop and eliminate articles someone doesn't like. Dream Focus 08:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The issue still stands that anything you can say about the anime is essentially what you can say about the manga, other than critiques of animation quality, filler arcs, or theme songs. All of these sources being used to support a separate article on the anime for let's say Bleach are just English language sources discussing the dub casting or English speakers praising the story, when the story is identical to the manga except for the filler arcs, which I don't think anyone has picked out sources saying that the Bount arcs or the Zanpakuto spirit arc were good.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
        • The anime ran for a total of 366 episodes including 111 episodes of original material not based on the manga. I'm sure something could be said about those 111 episodes that wouldn't fit in the manga article. The all important reception section is different, and wouldn't fit anywhere else. The things you listed are perfect valid for a Wikipedia article, and wouldn't all fit in the manga article, nor belong there at all. Dream Focus 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah. You discuss the episodes at the episode lists. And animation quality and theme songs would belong on an article about the anime, if there was anything out there that discusses animation quality in the review or anything beyond a list of song titles and performers. The sheer length of these Shonen Jump anime adaptations should not be a metric to separate their coverage from the manga because it's always just identical plot summary, save for the filler arcs, reviews that praise the story as a whole rather than the animation, and undue weight on the English adaptation. This is exactly what Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball Z, and Bleach (anime) look like.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Also to further clarify my previous rendition, multiple paragraph system would work only for specific media. For example, some person failed Fullmetal Alchemist over the fact that it covers the anime in a single article, and part of the reason was that the anime reception section was bigger than the manga's. but failed to realize that the anime reception section contains more than one anime series based on the manga. So there wont be no technicality here if there's multiple series (not seasons) made that would obviously take up more paragraphs all together.Lucia Black (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A&M, as it currently is, is not properly organized or operated to establish GA and FA level articles in a meaningful fashion. I see some of the most backwards and self-defeating actions here that have been instituted by a handful of people who lack any expertise of the subject and have little experience writing GA or FA level articles. Lucia Black has worked with me and Niemti in order to get the Ghost in the Shell (film) to GA status, but it seems that the whole "anime and manga" aspect is a sticking point in the dispute. Honestly, the whole "list of episodes" or "list of chapters" for series of 13-26 episodes or 4 volumes is a little silly. There is absolutely no reason to have Trinity Blood split up with List of Trinity Blood light novels, List of Trinity Blood chapters, List of Trinity Blood episodes. Treat every subject as if it were to be GA or FA level and that would require it to be "a comprehensive stand alone article on the topic". In the most basic and simple of terms; A&M is not like the rest of Wikipedia and it is frozen in a 2007ish era - limiting its relevancy, depth and scope of coverage to preserve a poorly thought out "way" from nearly a decade ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell your only request is that "Trinity Blood (novel series)", "Trinity Blood (manga)", and "Trinity Blood (anime)" exist instead of the lists. How is that different from what we have now?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, having them individually wont prove much to make them notable, and it will do was merge the lists into their own articles. it really doesn't provide much new individual information. We have several FA enough to prove that articles can be FA if their mainly a collective. I know you would like to keep them all separate, but if there's not enough information, then we can't figure it outLucia Black (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard

It is with a great deal of sadness and significant frustration that I am announcing my departure from this RfC. At this time, I do not believe that the RfC will be successful in resolving either the content or the conduct issues that I set out to resolve when I started the proceedings. While I had hoped to avoid what looked like the imminent filing of an ArbCom case, and the predicted topic or site banning that such a case would bring, I am no longer confident that this issue can be resolved at any venue other than ArbCom, and indeed have come to the conclusion that filing a case might be in the best interests of the project.

A few days ago, when it looked that this discussion had slowed down significantly, I had planned on gathering some admins that are not involved in this area to help me close this discussion. At the time, things were looking mostly positive. While there were no concrete metrics that could be pointed to, there was some consensus about the broader issue, and it looked like ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong were interacting with each other with an appropriate level of civility. I, however, got sidetracked by the ArbCom elections and neglected to make any progress in closing the RfC.

Unfortunately, based on recent on-wiki events such as this and private conversations, I no longer feel comfortable standing by my rosy outlook from a few days ago. It is clear that significant animosity exists between ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong, which extends beyond this content dispute. It is also clear that, as soon as communal attention drifted away from actively trying to resolve this dispute, the interactions between ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong took a turn for the worse.

If an uninvolved admin or admins would like to close this RfC, they should feel free to do so. I, however, no longer feel that I can deliver a neutral and levelheaded close (something that I felt capable of doing at the beginning of these proceedings), and therefore have no choice but to recuse. Since I am now of the belief that it is no longer a matter of if, but a matter of when, an ArbCom case will be filed, and since I am taking the failure of this RfC to reach an amicable resolution rather hard, I would prefer not to talk further about this issue until the ArbCom case opens.

To everyone that participated in this discussion, and tried to help it reach a resolution, you have my deepest thanks. I wish that your efforts could have amounted to more than they did.

Yours sincerely, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A dispute regarding the content of race in America should not end this discussion at all, partcularly when the accusations made in that thread you link to at WP:AN3 are entirely unfounded and were taken entirely out of context by another party. And I refuse to go through ArbCom. I had high hopes for this discussion, as plenty of previously uninvolved people seemed to make statements that both sides agreed with up until recently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can't close it Sven Manguard, all you have to do is find someone else to close it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I did so immediately after posting this statement. As I said above, I have no desire to further discuss this issue, as it has burned me out, so I will not be responding to any further comments left here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I called it out from the start of this whole thing and am surprised that nobody has been topic banned yet. The first RfC between Chris and Ryu did not work so what made you think this would? No what needs to be done is agreement or topic banned because something has to give here to avoid any more disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryu and Chris aside, we've made enough of a consensus to make a decision with WP:ANIME. And it would be a a shame to close this as no-consensus simply because the main disputers are having issues. Even if either were temporarily banned. the consensus that was reached here should remain.Lucia Black (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will leave that determination to someone else. Your point is valid, however, assuming that the closing admin finds there to be a workable consensus. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Early close

A request to close this RfC was posted recently at WP:ANRFC. Would there be any objections if I closed it today or tomorrow? Also, if the participants would rather than an admin close it for any reason, that's perfectly fine. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the last comment made by a human before you was on 19:51, 26 November 2013‎ (legobot edited on 8 December 2013‎), I don't see any issue with you closing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are professional models in costumes cosplaying?

Please see my question at WikiProject_Video_games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Prods of Gundam articles

I noticed several prods of Gundam topics, which I listed over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga‎. While the prodded subjects are all on in-universe topics, several of them seem like they are important enough to the franchise that they might have coverage in reliable sources, and even if they don't, should probably be trimmed down and merged somewhere rather than just deleted. I don't have time to work on those articles before the prods expire, but I was hoping someone else could try working on them. Calathan (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing is and I find myself guilty of this in the past as well is that only when an article is prodded or up for AfD do editors pay attention to it. Seeing that the majority of the stuff here is in-universe info I do not see why the links can not be saved and the info rewritten in the right spots rather than merge. This way someone can get around to doing it anytime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

yeah, as knowledgekid said. its best to save the links and find the relevant information to the respected articles.Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was posting about this here specifically because I thought some of the articles might be appropriate as stand alone articles if rewritten with more information other than in-universe information. I didn't mean to be suggesting that I think the topics should be merged, but instead mentioned that there is a possibly they could be merged if sufficient coverage in reliable sources isn't found. The main point of my comment was that I hoped someone would have time to look for sources on these topics. While the current content of the articles might not all be useful in better quality articles on the topics, it seems wasteful to let the content be deleted if the topics actually are notable, as some portion of the content could be used. My impression, which may be incorrect, is that the concept of a Newtype was influential on later works or had more of a popular culture influence than just its roll in the plot of Gundam. That was the article that I was thinking could most likely be saved by finding more sources. I also thought it was a possibility that the Zeon and Earth Federation were actually discussed or analyzed in some reliable sources beyond merely summarizing their role in the plot (I see Zeon has a short "cultural significance" section . . . I'm kind of thinking of stuff like that except with more sources added . . . I'm not quite sure what the sources currently there are or if they are sufficient to keep the article around on their own, but if someone thinks they are sufficient, then obviously you should remove the prod). So anyway, I just want to make it clear that what I'm asking for is if anyone has time to look for better sources on those topics, and not for someone to take what is currently there and rework it into other articles. Calathan (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, its difficult. Plus theres always the method of blowing up and starting over too.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Putting it simply; much of the information would need to be combined, condensed and sorted to its appropriate place. Aside from the numerous cultural references; we have factions of Gundam represented in main stream media for decades - as much as that is worth; the mere fact that it doesn't look like much makes it particularly hard to say "oh this merits a stand alone". There is a heavy push against fictional topics, but I do not know where to really begin with those PRODs. Deprodding would buy a week or two and before they are merged or redirected - at least the history would be kept versus the deletion which removes the content and its history. A clear reason to challenge the PROD on those grounds alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't touched Gundam articles in a long time but I believe I could at least help Amuro Ray and Char Aznable to pass wp:notability. I don't know much about sourcing mecha articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This talk page's archive is semi-broken

Coming back after a two year hiatus, I began reading the talk page archives to keep myself up to date. I found that that Archives 53 and 54 do not have a archive link for the succeeding archive (but yet have one for the preceding archive). Is there anyway of fixing this? Extremepro (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You must find the time displacement unit located in one of the anime articles. Once you do you should be able to access the missing timeline and restore balance to this wikiproject. If that doesn't work there is always admin assistance =) Oh and welcome back btw! =D - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, and welcome back Extreme. Good to see an old face around these parts.--十八 05:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox convention up for deletion

Input is needed as it is going to effect the anime convention articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanator.com up at RSN

I've started a discussion of the reliability of Japanator.com at RS/N. WP:RS/N#Japanator.com reliable for reviews? Extremepro (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Serialization discussion

Hi everyone,
DragonZero and I would like your opinion and input on an issue regarding serialization and the GA criteria here. Thank you. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified cosplay

I've created commons:Category:Unidentified cosplay. I'd suggest that we move all pictures from commons:Category:Cosplay there (I've already identified all that I could). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of those images wouldn't fulfill Common's requirement of being "realistically useful for an educational purpose". In other words, the uploader(s) are using Commons as an image hosting service instead of using Flickr or other service. It would be useful to go through the category and nominate images that aren't used in any articles. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop trolling, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a troll, it is part Common's policy. It's pretty clear that that the majority of those images are someone's personal gallery and would not server a useful educational purpose. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Mayo Chiki! chapters

I have recently made a list of chapters for the anime/manga and novel series Mayo Chiki! if anyone wants to help expand on what I already have the help would be appreciated. Thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How about it be moved to List of Mayo Chiki! printed media instead. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend instead moving the novel list back to the main article and centering this chapter list around the manga as is done by convention, especially if all you have for the novels are their release dates and ISBNs (i.e. no chapter names or novel summaries).--十八 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can support making it manga only, as I have more information regarding the manga than I do the novel series. As for the manga summaries I will be writing those in tomorrow (Sunday, it is 22:46 here now). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirects of character pages by TTN

I've noticed that User:TTN has been redirecting a lot of pages on fictional characters to character lists over the last few days, including many on anime and manga characters. This includes many of the main characters from franchises such as Ghost in the Shell, Haruhi Suzumiya, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, Full Metal Panic, Yu-Gi-Oh, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, and several others. While I'm sure that many of the redirected articles should be redirected (i.e., ones on secondary characters), I would think that some of the main characters from some of those franchises are notable enough for stand-alone articles. Could someone please review the articles that he is redirecting to see if any should probably be kept as stand alone articles? Calathan (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just doing it based on the current quality of the articles, so I'm not against someone reverting any they think can be improved. TTN (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No matter how "major characters" Wikipedia editors may consider them to be, unless third parties have considered them so it is better for them to be redirects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think some of them might be notable based on Wikipedia standards. I'm not suggesting that characters should have stand alone articles just because they are major characters within their series. Calathan (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also note that these were poor quality articles that not many chose to clean up. if any of them do have notability by some off chance, its best to expand it with third-party sources in the list article until deemed worthy of being notable (and not many editors care about these characters as much as others to make the needed fixes.)Lucia Black (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the Haruhi Suzumiya (character) character redirect, some characters are straightforward redirects but ones with multiple sources need to be discussed first, I do not like the way this is being handled. I see no evidence that the user has looked for any sources in any edits, just deletions, redirects and merges. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, TTN's been a redirect freak for as long as I can remember - anybody working the TV shows circuit will remember his wanton redirects of episodes. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eaglestorm: WP:CIVIL please. no need to call someone anything here. In this case TTN has been right the majority of the time to redirect them. And most of the times, episodes aren't all notable, so TTN also may have had the right to redirect those as well. Regardless, for now i think we're all in agreement most of those characters weren't really notable or proven to be notable. WP:ANIME doesn't have the amount of dedicated editors to fix those articles, and i also blame the lack of accessibility to certain sources. So again, i think we're good here. TTN hasn't done anything wrong unless he causes an edit war.Lucia Black (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also consider that if you do believe you can better source one of these articles, anyone can undo the redirect (you don't need admin help) and expand it out. It allows the name/term to remain searchable on WP. It retains the history contributions from past editors. It's a safe option. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even main characters need to establish notability separately from the parent article. However, there should be more cleanup done with these redirects beyond just simply redirecting them to the character list. TTN needs to make sure that there is a discription on the list, that the correct anchors are in place, that the redirects use those anchors, and that the links from the list's entry are removed. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of those character pages are being redirected without any of the content being merged. So someone needs to beef up the merged lists if they think content is being lost. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of information though? for non-notable character articles, the vast majority would have to be in-universe. Which characters do you see has a problem with lack of information?Lucia Black (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it in the Nana (manga) character articles as I had been working on converting the infobox for Nana Komatsu only for it to be wiped out, but as you said, a lot of the details were in-universe so it would have needed to pass notability to get the article restored to a decent level. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just in case, we should probably double check and make sure certain key aspects weren't removed by accident. obviously by those familiar with the series.Lucia Black (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:English anime licensee - Russia

Template:English anime licensee - in this template - there is no option for Russia - should it be classified under Europe (EU)? Extremepro (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind - found it under Europe. Extremepro (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any anime that has an English language licensee in Russia? 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)