Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Sailor Moon Crystal episode list

As Sailor Moon Crystal is going to be airing a few days from now, I've created an episode list for the series in my sandbox. If anyone wants to help work on it, please feel free to do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and create the page. It looks good to me. —KirtZ^Message 03:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved it, since the userspace treatment is already finished, and nominated it for a DYK. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the Did you know nomination is here if anyone is interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion on genre dispute

A Mexican IP has attempted to add Yuri (genre) as a genre to Is the Order a Rabbit? multiple times, however, the genre has been disputed by another editor and I informed the Mexican IP that a reliable source is required. The discussion is being held at Talk:Is the Order a Rabbit?#'Yuri' Genre. —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Like a lot of Kirara manga series, it's particularly heavy in subtext, but not straight up yuri at this point in time. There is a female character who has a crush on another girl, but it's not the focus. Wonchop (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of Splitting Episode Lists

This looks like a community worthy discussion. What should be the criteria to warrant the split of an anime episode list with multiple seasons. Pros and Cons. Go! On going debate started here has relatively ended with no consensus other than adopting a method which seems somewhat outdated. That is just an example though. I'm more looking at reasons as to why both seasons of something like the Railgun episodes should be in one list while Code Geass has two (plus) pages: this, this along with this. Is it because of series notability or the length that such seasons span—episode count and time period? I have actually seen the combined method used in other series pages on the WikiProject and would like to know if this was actually discussed or just one of those "this-page-has-it-already-so-why-not-this-one" chain reactions. —KirtZ^Message 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think having one episode list or splitting it into multiple lists is just a matter of page size. If all the episodes from all the seasons can be summarized on one page without it being too long, then it should be on one page. If the list gets too long, then it should be split into multiple lists. When the episode list is split into multiple sub-lists, there is usually a summary page providing a shorter list of all the episodes with less detailed information, and with links to the more detailed lists (e.g., List of Code Geass episodes or List of Bleach episodes.) That seems to be the way things have been done in the past, and I think that is a good way of handling episode lists. As for when to split, WP:Article size provides some guidelines on when a page is too big and should be split. Basically, if a list seems too long to read easily in one sitting, it should probably be split into multiple pages. Calathan (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it go by page size. But this is Wikipedia, so we have to get into whether the individual seasons are "notable". Tezero (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists are always split up into seasons to avoid having massive pages. I don't think that "notability" is really an issue here because there wouldn't be that much information on the page if notability was not established. Railgun should definitely be split up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Course, trying to settle on a definition of 'massive' is the tricky part. I don't think Railgun really warrants a split as two two-cour seasons is roughly the same as one four-cour season (by comparison, a single season of One Piece is about 70 episodes).Wonchop (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, One Piece is a 70ep season because it's an entire story arc, it has a beginning and an end. It's also how the series is divided up by the makers. Railgun/Index sounds like two separate arcs/stories (I've not seen Rail/Index so may need educating).SephyTheThird (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking Index has several arcs per season, since it's adapted from a light novel, whilst Railgun tends to have two main arcs per season; one adapted from the manga and an anime original one. The same sorta goes with early One Piece seasons, as they weren't all focused on one particular event but rather several smaller adventures.Wonchop (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also the fact that, unlike a season listing for a long running show, series with multiple smaller seasons can be easily jumped to with the ToC (obviously not in the 'stick a heading for each episode' manner), so that dampens the impact of being 'too long to read easily in one sitting' compared to other listings. Basically as long as you don't go overkill with the summaries it should be fine.Wonchop (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with size. If the series only has two 12/13-episode seasons worth and some OVAs, it can be kept together in one article. Railgun can be split since the first season was 24 episodes; and definitely spilt from Index. Something like Space Dandy or Attack on Titan shouldn't require two articles just because there's a "second season" for episodes 14-26. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my thinking based on those articles. But these are easy to deal with as series go.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"One sitting" varies and is subjective. It's not a reliable barometer of attention span.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically seperate lists for on-going seasons tend to be kept for the long-running series such as Naruto and One Piece, whilst adaptations that get a new one/two-cour season every one or two years can simply be listed with the previous season(s). When you try and use a seperate season listing for the one-cour series, particularly ones that distinguish themselves with subtitles such as Free! - Eternal Summer, it gets confusing to readers about which order they need to be read in if they're not given some roman numeral or something. Seperate articles do tend to get used for spin-off series (for example, Railgun's episode listing is kept seperate from Index's) or alternate adaptations (eg. Dragonball Z Kai, Persona 4 the Golden Animation), though only rarely do they get a main article seperate from its main inspiration (generally if it's notably different from the source material, such as an alternate universe, or spawns a mini-franchise of its own). Simply put, you should generally try and keep things to as few articles as neccessary. There are some articles, such as Code Geass, that seem to do otherwise, though this seems to be more related to how old the anime is and how Wikipedia has become more streamlined in later years (as well as some users anxiousness to fiddle with something and incur a fanboy's wrath). Wonchop (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors involved. Firstly a lot of our lists are without summaries, in which case article size (be it visual or in raw bytes) shouldn't be much of an issue. It's no different from subst'ing separate lists into a "main list", a practise that's been used for years on long shows - you still get a longish page with every episode. Secondly, increasing amounts of series are now deliberately shortened into 13ep seasons that then get a second set of episodes a few seasons later (something that never used to happen very often, if at all). Thirdly, even the longer series in Japan have started to be officially split into seasons (i.e. Naruto, Bleach and One Piece). There are some articles which have been arbitrarily split by users into 25/26/50 episodes (List of Lupin III Part II episodes comes to mind) by opening and ending themes, which is original research in my book to call them seasons. In the case of a series being 2x13 episodes, they should be on a single page, divided into two with relevant information for each season being under the relevant heading. If a english language release has divided a show up into seasons for convenience (i.e. Ranma) then that should probably take priority over any Japanese separation. However this should be decided on a per series case. With pretty much all english-language releases in the last few years being box sets, we could also split shows by those if the series is big enough (i.e. not splitting 26 episodes just because they were released as 2x13ep boxes for public convenience)- useful in the cases of old shows being released in large sets. Ultimately this is the type of thing it's better to provide several suggestions for rather than a hard and fast rule. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, if an anime adaption of something is only one-cour, or has just started airing, it can generally be kept on the main article until there's over 13 episodes or an announcement for a second season, unless that article is already a bit heavy with information as it is. Wonchop (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, per series basis. If the series is finished or close to finishing, I would consider spinning it out. A 13 ep series with summaries can easily become undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Get some prose in there instead. Then again, I would say that as I'm developing manga release date lists into proper chapter lists (because no one else is).SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would again probably be down to how long the episode summaries get. Slice-of-life anime or short-form anime don't tend to go beyond a few sentences so they don't cause much of a problem.Wonchop (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Eyeshield and Toriko come to mind. They're 145 and 147-episode series (over 100kb) respectively but there's no official division into seasons. What to do? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at Toriko's list, it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue at this point since the episode summaries aren't that long. I can't think of any particular way you could split it up either.Wonchop (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the need to split call them List of x episodes 1-50 etc. To call them seasons would be OR. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Who cares how many cours it is? The Railgun list is too long. It should be split into two separate lists like any other god damn TV show page. Anime isn't special in this regard.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Get a faster scroll wheel then. I see no issue with the article's size and splitting it up would just result in too many extra articles (since it would effectively have to be done to Index too by that logic) that just make it less convenient for users to read what they want.Wonchop (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And to counter your 'any other god damn TV show page' argument, there are quite a few shows with multiple seasons that don't feel the need to split into seperate articles, such as various Spider-Man animated series. Wonchop (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think taking into consideration the use of the ToC quick links, it's fine for a single article to have multiple season listings of 13/26 episodes each, as well as sections for OVAs/TV specials, without the need to be split into seperate articles. Splitting should be more used for continuous anime (One Piece, etc) or series that run all year round and change to a new 'series' each year (eg. the way Yes Precure 5 and Yes Precure 5 GoGo lists are kept seperate since they're roughly 50 eps each), and again, this can be give or take depending on how much information the summaries get. Like I said, it's less inconvenient to scroll through a kinda long article to get all the information than to have to go through about three seperate ones. In general, new articles probably don't need to be used for most sequel series, unless they are notably different from the original, such as a remake. Wonchop (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with convenience. It's about defining separation of related content. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Often times list of episodes will contain broadcast history, ratings, opening/ending songs and other information that could easily be divided into seasons. If there is multiple related list-article (such as seasons or direct sequels) that do not have sufficient information to separate them, then they could be merged together. Lucia Black (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists only need basic details, the important thing is the list, not the prose before it, which can be any size really unless you are aiming for FL. As we know, lists don't need to show notability or the need to be spun out in this case. The core argument is should we split lists by episode count or "seasons". Now I'm going to outdent so see that.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My brief POV/suggestion:
- Lets drop the "cours" term, while it is indeed a measure of seasonal(calendar) blocks there just as many shows that don't make use of it than do.
- Series with 2x13 ep "seasons" for example should stick to one article unless a reasonable argument can be made for them being separate series (not separate seasons but two different series). That would be a per series argument but should "default" to sharing an article. Prose should be combined at the start of the article, but as separate paragraphs.
- Franchises with multiple 26+ seasons or 24+ and 13+ (for example Railgun/index) should be split per story season, regardless of sub arcs. So one article for Railgun episodes, another for Index. Note: a series being released as Part A/1 and Part B/2 are not reasons to split a series into seasons.
- Long running shows should default to official japanese seasons where they exist but with priority going to english-language seasons if they also exist. If no official split exists it should be tackled on a per series basis but titled as List of x episodes 1-x etc and not list as Seasons - that would be O/R. This split may involve theme songs but shouldn't be labelled as seasons based on them.
-Series with any unlisted complications should be discussed on that page, or brought to the project as and when.

-Size should only be an issue with large unbroken lists. "The big three" have legitimate reasons for having 70eps per article and follow the release patterns of the Japanese and English-language adaptions. They shouldn't be used as a reason to combine multiple 26+ episodes seasons into one list. Convenience in reading shouldn't be a factor in most cases as this is why we have templates and in-line wikilinks. The likes of Toriko, with no seasonal divide can follow the eps1-x example if they have summaries, but really this should be down to the people likely to monitor and work on the list. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC) My lists have rejected in the past for not meeting a specific notability, but really spun-out list is a good option. i'm only saying that multiple list articles are usually because the lists are too big to be a single one. Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Still gets a little confusing when it comes to what should be split into seperate articles or what can just be divided into different sections in a single article (not helped by the fact noone seems to have a consensus on what is 'too big'). To use an example that kind of incorporates both methods, Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal is divided up into two series Zexal and Zexal II, which are each split up into three seasons of roughly 25 episodes each, as opposed to six seperates articles titled Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal (season one), Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal II (season one), and so forth. Same kinda thing with Index and Railgun. One article for Index episodes, one article for Railgun episodes, each with subsections dedication to its seasons and bonus episodes. It keeps things neatly together and easily retraceable to its source media. I'm not sure why convenience is deemed irrelevant when there's so many guidelines formed around it (avoiding in-universe terms, keeping summaries simple, etc.). Simply put, a franchise should try to keep to as few articles as neccessary.Wonchop (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Zexal series doesn't have all that much coverage for the broadcast history for each individual episode. some list articles get more coverage than others to warrant multiple lists. Its really all that simple. if you see a list article that's not that long (we're talking about article size, not just number of episodes, please include plot summaries along with it) then they can be merged with the previous season or series list episode (but again, depends on the length). Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Everyone > Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that you're all assuming that everyone uses Wikipedia on a large display with mice (trackpad) and keyboard. An increasing number or people access Wikipedia from mobile devices and have you tried scrolling a ridiculously lengthy list article from the average 4-inch mobile device? It is utterly atrocious.

We have this infobox— {{Infobox television season |season_name = |image = |caption = |country = |network = |first_aired = |last_aired = |num_episodes = |next_season = |}} —that can be used and makes it incredibly easy to navigate between multiple lists because it shows up right in a user's face the second they access a page from any device. I hate to say this but some of the above discussion fails to cater for the average user. I think Lucia's suggestions may be the best compromise here. —KirtZ^Message 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As much as I dislike being sent to the mobile version of Wikipedia, it's actually one of the better mobile sites in presenting information. Having just tested the mobile site on my iPhone (so not an increasingly common giant Android), episode lists are very readable in landscape mode and momentum based scrolling makes it relatively easy to scroll down to latter parts of the list. Mobile browsing has always been a compromise (and near impossible to edit a page for anything beyond a typo) and I don't think we need to specifically cater for mobile users when Wikipedia already presents the information in a readable manner. Although adding the infobox seems like a perfectly sensible idea that I can fully agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephyTheThird (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think as far as multiple 26ep lists go, multiple lists could potentially be used on a single article to a certain point, like up to about three main seasons. At that point, it'd be more reasonable to spread out into multiple articles with an index page to link them all (with additional lists for OVAs and/or specials listed on the index, unless they are tied to a particular season). In the case of Railgun, I don't think seperate articles are particularly worth considering at this point until the series gets a third season (which judging by its previous schedule with Index seasons won't be for a good few years). This is probably more debateable for longer 52ep lists, but that'll be more down to summary size and notability (for example, Puchimas, which has two seasons of about 130 altogether, should be fine for now since the summaries are only a single sentence each). Other than that, it's just a matter of seeing what you can do to make articles shorter without the need for splitting (streamlining episode summaries, removing unneccessary trivia, etc.). Wonchop (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC) In other words, it's not so much about how large the episode lists are, but rather how large the franchise intends to be, as it's not particularly worth using multiple articles for series that only get one or two seasons.Wonchop (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Making any attempt to assume how large a series intends to be is a bit of a stretch and constitutes to WP:CRYSTAL. Series with at least 25 episodes per season (such as Phi Brain and Bakuman should definitely be split so that we can have some consistency in our project lists. With this being said series that have two seasons with 12 or 13+ episodes each (in addition to OVAs) could potentially be kept on one page to average out the 25 episode list per page. Of course this would only apply to the normal television seasons as such as High School DxD for example, as big series like Naruto and One Piece already have their own format. Frankly, combining lists have been more popular on older pages and we never make use of the infobox and it helps with page navigation, which you cant really deny. Also, we dont exactly have a tonne of people to help maintain lists which tend to fall by the wayside over time due to fancruft. They really only ever get the treatment you suggest when say, someone decides to FLC. —KirtZ^Message 13:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least in terms of the present, i.e. what we know rather than what's yet to be announced, an episode list article consisting of two 26 ep seasons (with occassional sub-listings for OVAs, films, etc) should be a reasonable size if no further seasons are currently planned, whilst stuff consisting of three or more seasons of that sort of length can be divided up accordingly. Course, there can be factors in dividing things up outside of episode counts and page size, such as timeskips or a focus on different characters. Again, it's very much per series basis. Wonchop (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on some of the suggestions by other Project contributors, I only see it being on a "per series basis" in very rare instances such as with Eyeshield and Toriko as Gabriel Yuji mentioned. Throwing factors like timeskips and different character arcs aren't exactly high priority here and should only being given thus as something SephyTheThird touched upon initially. 25/26 episodes (+OVAs) per page should be the minimum starting point and just go from there. This covers, as I said, series with 2 seasons each of 12/13 episodes and can fit nicely on one page. It also makes things easier when looking at this from an FLC standpoint. Also, there is no harm in using the infobox between pages. —KirtZ^Message 18:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be safe to split things up in accordance to how the broadcasting is dealt with like on the scale of theme song changes or title changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So basically, there's a lot of conflicting and confusing factors in play here. What is deemed to long or short for a single article. How detailed summaries can get. How certain shows are split/merged on a series basis. What distinguishes a season from a series. What goes where when managing multiple articles. How such changes affect the way main pages are prosed. How splitting articles may end up warranting the creation of additional articles. When there's a show with multiple series that have their own individual seasons. Whether a series is relevant or notable enough to even bother with splits. And that's before we get to whole argy bargy involving users who are particular to their certain fandoms. As far as basic series (ie. ignoring the typical long running shows) are concerned, here's my view on how things can be split (based on average sizes).

• 13ep seasons - multiple can be used in a single article, single season may optionally be implimented into main article if said page isn't too detailed itself
• 26ep seasons - for series with up to two seasons + OVAs, a single article can suffice. for 3+ seasons, split into seperate articles and use an index page to link them together
• 50ep seasons - one season per page

Wonchop (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it again, this is really simple, dependson the coverage of each list. Some seasons are more independent or get more coverage than other series. It just take it one list at a time, no need to really establish a specific format. There will always be specific situations and exceptions that can be made. I don't know why this has turned to a big discussion. This doesn't just involve anime/manga, other series such as Justice League and Justice League Unlimited and others such as The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2). We really dont need to be so specific for lists, just apply common sense. Lucia Black (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the common sense I was trying to convey at least is that lists should be kept to as few articles as neccessary if possible. Like I said, my suggestions only pertain to average 13/26ep adaptations that only has a few seasons and/or only get additional ones every two years or so and is not a catch all for all series. At the least, if something is only presently two seasons long, it shouldn't need to be split into seperate articles. Wonchop (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Except episode lists are split into sublists on a seasonal basis anyway. There's no reason not to do that for an anime unless people just write 3 sentence summaries for each episode.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sublists, yes. Not full blown articles. Wonchop (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Having separate list articles per season is normal practice. There's no reason for anime to be different. Still.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several American shows that keep all their seasons (and summaries) to a single article, so that argument is kinda moot. Besides, the whole prior argument has pretty much taught us there's no 'normal practise' when it comes to different types of anime series. Wonchop (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And the kinds of TV shows that do have the one page for all episodes thing generally do not have a bunch of nerds who really like it and write enough about it to have more than one page anyway. If there's an explicit divide in an anime's broadcast then we can use that to make new episode list pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'can' and 'should'. No point in creating additional articles and complicating things for the sake of it if it's not absolutely neccessary. Also, noone cares that you're a nerd, particularly since articles tend to aim to tone down nerdiness anyway. If the underlying problem is overly long summaries, just don't make them overly long. Wonchop (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said we were complicating anything. *facepalm* Tonnes of shows (not just anime) have articles per season. Make use of the infobox. You have not even mentioned it. I think everyone else pretty much agrees that sticking to one list is fairly outdated a format. —KirtZ^Message 21:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, why fix it? I don't 'hate' the infobox. I just think seperate articles for shows with only two seasons to speak of is like having two shops which sell milk and eggs respectively instead of just one shop that sells both. Sure, you eventually get your milk and eggs, but it takes twice as long. Yeah, seperate season lists work for a lot of series, but not all of them. Wonchop (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So far it's consistent with how WP:Television episodes is handling it, which is mainly on whether the individual season has notability. I don't see a problem with keeping multiple seasons on a single article either when all they did was change the name and theme song for the new season. If they did some notable seasonal changes, then make the second article or the branch articles. As for the geek writing, I don't see it as much on episode summaries, and those can be easily shortened per MOS:TV#Episode_listing which recommends about 100-350 words and branching the seasons when there are 80+ episodes. The problem with the geek writing is with those character lists with extremely long entries that are unreferenced (e.g. Toriko character list) and with extremely short entries of non-notable support characters like "Joe's Father" (e.g. List of Freezing characters). -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC), updated 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like an ideal way to sum it up. Keep summaries short and try to avoid splitting into multiple articles when possible. Also, avoid doing that 'subsection per episode' thing Ryulong likes to do with the Stardust Crusaders episode list. It just makes things look cumbersome. Wonchop (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW Ryulong I am quite miffed that you went and split Railgun up despite all the logical arguments I made and without checking with the article's talk page first. I suggest either putting it back the way it was, matching up with what AngusWoof said, or at the least, sort Index's episode list to match. Wonchop (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, Index only had one season. And no one's talking here. There's no reason to keep to the format that you've been proscribing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty pathetic excuse. Reverting things back to the way they were because likewise, there's no reason to go with the format you keep insisting on. Wonchop (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think AngusWoof's summary of events is the best way to go about things. As far as I can gather, the only reasons one should absolutely need to split episode listings into seperate articles are:

• if the series contains, or is looking to contain, more than 80+ episodes overall
• if a series is significantly different to a preceding series (eg. different tone, spin-off, remake/reboot, etc), and is easily distinguishable as a result
• if summaries require an intricate level of detail that would make episode lists particularly long even when summarised to basic elements (this would probably only apply to TV series with lengthy episodes, eg. hour long)

Additionally, there should be an agreement in said article's talk page that the article be split. Otherwise, just using subsections in the same articles is perfectly fine and keeps things tidy and less confusing for the user. Wonchop (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

80 episode is way too much for a single episode list, especially with episode summaries of any decent length (~150 words). More than 20 is a much better point to split, but the exact split should be based on how the seasons are defined. Two seasons of 11 to 13 episodes each may not need to be split, however, two 22 to 26 episode seasons or three 11 to 13 episode seasons should have separate lists. This is especially true if both seasons have separate storylines (or arcs). There is no benefit in cramming two or more 22 to 26 episode seasons into one list as it makes the list harder to manage and browse through. —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, just use common sense. Its not that hard. there really isn't any need to make such a discussion about what format we use unless the way we split them off is heavily inconsistent (which it isn't). Theres no need for this long discussion. Lucia Black (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't that hard, but apparently a certain editor wants to make it hard by setting some sort of bright-line "rules". The size and detail of the lists should determine when they may be split, not some arbitrary set of rules. If there is a dispute about a specific split, request a third opinion. —Farix (t | c) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there's the case of 'not all anime', but in particular regards to a lot of 12-26ep anime that only have two seasons, such as a lot of ones airing this season, it's generally unneccessary to create seperate articles until we're at least three seasons in. Noone was saying there should be a straight list of 80 episodes, just that there needs to be around that amount in the entire series to warrant splitting into multiple articles. It's kinda like being sent to a seperate library just to read the second volume of a book. It's less frustrating to scroll a little while longer than to have to go seperate places to get the full picture, particularly if the picture ain't that big to begin with. Wonchop (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Break

If we leave this this discussion with one thing, it should be that we unanimously agree upon Move Discussions before merging / splitting lists. Noone is even taking into account the effect that merging pages has on page quality such as FLCs. Pages should be spilt by television seasons if a single season is nominated for an FLC. This makes that process much easier. Also, Farix, your last comment about combining smaller seasons of 11-13 episodes and splitting larger 22-26 episode seasons is what I've been getting at. Someone explain why the Code Geass featured lists would be better as a single list. (This isn't Winterfell. Our way cannot be the old way - because Wikipedia is dynamic which is why I started this discussion).

Wonchop you can not convert a page to the way you want it to be and then throw an edit-fit when someone disagrees. This is why we have talk pages and move discussions. The usual process would be to leave an article(s) in its original state then start a discussion as Lucia Black suggests. If no consensus is reached this only means that the page is left as it was prior to the discussion as happens on numerous occasions. We are not mind readers, this is the internet. Nor will everyone agree. So what? Just accept it and move on. Letting oneself get riled up only clouds one's judgement. I would greatly appreciate if you read this entire thing.

Taking the above about FLC into account, and per Wonchop recent edits, I welcome comments by everyone at the ongoing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Encouragement of Climb episodes (season 1)/archive1 if you feel that the seasons should be merged and or improvements etc. —KirtZ^Message 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all seasons do, like i said, it all depends on the situation, but i guess we should take account on how much attention the series is getting by our fellow editors. So if an editor is confident in splitting in order to get a season as FLC, then their should be confidence that there is coverage for the next season or soon to be. List of Encouragement of Climb episodes seems to be well covered, season 2 isn't complete, but it looks like it has decent enough of information to look like it can be separated from the previous season. So it really depends on the editors and how much attention. Hence, common sense. lets not put a number on anything. I will say any series with over 13 episodes merits a list article of their own regardless if they have all the seasons merged into one or not. Lucia Black (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I've kinda been doing things is keep a single season on the main article's page until it's big or notable enough to grow into an episode list article (such as when it grows over 13 episodes or spawns an additional list of OVA episodes), then use that article for multiple seasons, only further splitting that up when it's notably too large (which kinda varies depending on the series, but it's not something I particularly consider for series consisting of two 25ep seasons). I don't think Encouragement really needs two articles since the episodes for both seasons are short compared to usual seasons, with summaries possibly in need of a streamlining. I will try and avoid jumping the gun on merges in the future though, t'was just my own common sense getting the best of me.

One thing I'm not particularly keen on is how some editors seem to title episode lists for secondary seasons with just that title (eg. a list consisting of Sword Art Online's season season episodes being called Sword Art Online II instead of List of Sword Art Online II episodes). Much like how a voice actor's credit in a sequel series would link to the franchise's main article, articles with just the sequel's title on its own should ideally be a redirect to its corresponding franchise article, where the main information of the anime and its source material is detailed, as opposed to specifically for an episode list. Additionally, for a lot of sequel series that use subtitles instead of numbers or numerals, in can be confusing which order these articles should be read, particularly when using the search bar. In the case of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, there was a fair bit of back and forth about how that should be titled since there are multiple pieces of media the title can refer to than just the TV anime, such as the story arc or the OVA (this particular case has been settled btw). Considering a lot of American licensors will often forego the Japanese versions subtitle altogether and just refer to them as another season, it may be worth considering referring to subsequent episode lists as Anime (season x) or whatever's consistent with the previous entries. Wonchop (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That will only cause confusion. We have Sailor Moon, Sailor Moon R, Sailor Moon S, Sailor Moon SuperS and Sailor Moon Sailor Stars. all seasons. it would be confusing if we did "Sailor Moon R (season 2)" because people will think Sailor Moon R has a season 1. The disambiguator is there for seasons that aren't explicitly named differently. If both seasons are named the same, then we use disambiguation to separate them. This does not apply if another season has a name of its own. Lucia Black (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously I didn't meant it that way. A correct example would be, say, if there was a need to split Working!! up into seperate season lists, the second season's list would be called "Working!! (season 2)" as opposed to its given Japanese title Working'!!. Again, this is not a catch all thing and is more applicable to occassional series that are referred to differently in licensed releases. The Sailor Moon lists you mentioned currently retain the "List of X episodes" format, so there's no real confusion in that regard since you can tell these are episode lists. It's more an issue of when it drops the 'List of' moniker and is similarly titled to the main article, becoming less obvious as an episode list article as a result, hence the confusion. Wonchop (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IF their listed like that its probably a little more than just a list. Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in some of the cases I've stumbled across, it's just being used for a generic second season episode list. I think notability plays a key part (for example: Stardust Crusaders feels more like its own show as opposed to just a second season, and is just about uniquely titled enough to distinguish itself from the manga article), but if it's just a standard continuation of a previous season, it probably should either follow the List of X episodes naming format or at the least remain consistent with its previous season listings. It basically just needs to be more recognisable as an episode list. Wonchop (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or they choose to add more than just episodes such as reception, casting, and production. It goes a little more than a typical episode list. it doesn't need to, but some choose to do it that way. Lucia Black (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jojo's is a mess because they have mixed links to the manga articles as subsection headers in the episode list, rather than discussing in prose how the season correlates with the similarly-named manga series or light novels. As long as the master list can keep track of these, then you can have branch articles like "Sword Art Online II" or "Sword Art Online II (anime)" (assuming there's a "Sword Art Online II (manga)") which would contain the episode list as if it were "Sword Art Online (season 2)". If the disambiguator is too subtle like that apostrophe in working, then I agree about using (season 2), although for Working!!, fortunately each season is only 13 episodes, so they'd all be lumped together. I've seen a similar case for Seitokai Yakuindomo where the second anime season has an asterisk, and the OAV's are numbered straight after the first anime season. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Filmographies of voice actors - argh

I’ve got an IP editor who’s driving me nuts in the filmography sections for Michelle Ruff and Stephanie Sheh with his reverting so I need advice on two things:

bolding of lead roles - this violates MOS:BOLD which says "Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text”. I’ve asked for this years ago but it was decided not to bold.

I’ve tagged the filmographies (and others) with "{{BLP sources|list}}" where I split the sourced roles into sourced and unsourced/insufficiently sourced roles. This is because of the recent wave of AFDs and notability tagging where voice actors are being deleted because they lack bios and have filmographies with no sources, or have a sprinkle of sources that are from their official website/resume. However the IP insists on keeping the lists mixed, and does not even try to fill in the sources or put in any decent biography, rather reverting the sources I do put in. As a result the voice actor articles continue to have a bunch of roles that are likely uncredited.

Any ideas? Or is this a losing battle? -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Roger Craig Smith has it worse, since people are actually preventing his voice roles from actually being listed on the grounds of there being no references outside of IMDB or ANN, resulting in only a few of his notable video game roles being listed in prose. Wonchop (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. His official website list his resume. [1] And you can click on the wikilinks to the things he has been in and see his name there. Common sense, you can just use the credits of the anime or whatnot to prove they were there. Dream Focus 15:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense here since unless someone is arguing that he is faking roles to make himself more important I think that he is a much better authority regarding his body of work than random people registering on ANN or IMDB. It should not even be a dispute.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As a followup on this discussion Talk:Michelle Ruff, I've undone the tags for BLP sources list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon characters FL

There's an important discussion about a possible FLC for List of Sailor Moon characters. The discussion can be found at Talk:List_of_Sailor_Moon_characters#FL_status.3F. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Evangelion Genre Dispute

Discussion is at Talk:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#Disputes_to_include_genres if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Voice actor bios

I need some help to keep Bridget Hoffman from being deleted over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Hoffman. I've written up her biography section where I reference numerous reviews that critique her dubbing and directing performances on some of her most important roles, however the AFD'er is questioning the sources as too SERP-ish. So I wanted to know if this is sensible or whether I'm just wasting my time as fancruft. This will likely impact all anime voice actor articles if it is the latter. Unfortunately she isn't the type of voice actor who frequents anime conventions or has a website. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold split of Sailor Moon anime

I made a bold split of the anime adaptation. Hopefully if someone disagrees with the split, it can be discussed. So if anyone has a problem with the split, please discuss it here. Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Expanding MOS guideline for structure/format

So for a while i thought up of a way to make structure more consistent. This is what i come up with:

• If the article contains mostly information of the original media of a multi-media series, then it is appropriate to separate the adaptations, spin-off, and complimentary media into a "Related media" section while the major aspects of the original media such as "Development" and "Release" or "Broadcast" into their own respected sections. (Note: if multiple sections of the original media are not adequate size individually, combine two into a single section until more information is found. e.g. "Development and Release". If multiple adaptations, spin-offs, and complimentary media are not adequate size to have their own subsection in the "Related media", do not give them a specific subsection)
  • Example: Uzumaki, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, FLCL

==Production==
Production of the anime. Director's note, commentary, and other.

==Broadcast==
Broadcast of the anime. Where and when it broadcasted and for how long. Name all Regions included with English regions in detail.

==Related media==
All related media. 

• If the article contains little to no secondary information such as "Development" or "Production", and the only remaining information is "release" and "reception", have the release information of the original media alongside the adaptations/spin-off/complimentary media in a general "Media" section.(Note: If there is not enough information for both media to have their own section, do not give them a specific-subsection)
  • Example: Blue Submarine No. 6, Bakuman

==Media==

===Manga===
Manga release information. 

===Anime===
Anime release information.

===Light novel===
Light novel release information.

• If the article contains significant amount of secondary information such as "Development" or "Production" for both the original media and the adaptations/spin-offs, have a "Production"/"Development" section cover both the original media and adaptations/spin-off and have both the Release information of the original media and adaptations/spin-offs into a general "Media" section. (Note: If the article is too big, consider splitting the adaptations/spin-off into its own article if it has enough third-party coverage.)
  • Example: School Rumble, Sailor Moon

==Production==
Production of the manga. 
Production of the anime.

==Media==

===Manga===
Release history of the manga.
 
===Anime===
Release history of the anime. 

I believe this is the best format for our articles to have. And will make our articles more consistent and reasonable. Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Lucia Black (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree about not giving complementary media a subsection; for example, Drama CDs/podcasts and OSTs/character singles that clearly support the anime adaptation can be grouped with the anime paragraphs. There may be some crossover where a light novel or manga features a limited edition OVA episode though. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a name for that though. I've seen Oh My Goddess! have that type of setup only in reverse. Lucia Black (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The MoS has been challenged before and consensus was it needs to be updated to be used as enforcement in a debate. Secondly, we should be throwing away the Media heading which is giving equal weight to the original and related media and instead, start adopting the release and adaptions/related media similar to books, Video games, and movies. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Much of the time (especially for newer series), that is not a viable option. To use Witch Craft Works as one of the examples above, the manga's release section is so small, that it makes sense to group it together in a single Media section. That's not to say that it couldn't be spun out into its own section later if more information was found, but much of the time, there is very little information pertaining to the release of any given animanga series. So wouldn't it be at least better to have smaller sections grouped together under one level-2 header (Media), instead of having multiple level-2 headers, one of which will 90% of the time be basically 1 or 2 sentences and maybe a table, like in Witch Craft Works?--十八 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the Mos needs updating and improving. However I'm not convinced equal weight is necessarily a bad thing, sometimes that's just the way a particular work is - sometimes the original media is overshadowed by it's spin offs or they simply have much more information and it's a balance that has to be viewed on a per article basis. A large franchise needs to take a different approach than say a manga with one anime adaption and a couple of games. I'd also argue that especially with older (even just pre 2000, but especially pre 90s) works, there often simply isn't enough information to give more weight to the original material.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X wouldn't be affected by this, I don't think... Tezero (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it was thats a case for down the line. This is unlikely to be agreed on quickly enough to affect that article and even it did you'd be able to make the changes later.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Yes the MOS needs to be updated, this is one of my proposals that will fix it significantly. And although you have been running a campaign to avoid "media" sections in anime/manga articles (to only the articles you have contributed), that does not mean that the articles that do have it are lower in quality then those who use another name or not have it at all. The article Tales of Symphonia that you just linked shows a major issue: The book section in the adaptation subsection contains guidebooks, something that isn't an "adaptation" at all. That could be an issue (which the easiest thing to fix is renaming it "Related media").

Keep in mind, anime and manga are handled very differently than a general film, video game, and books but also have different relationship between the two series. It like comparing Chinese food to fruit: one is defined by culture, the other is probably by region at most. As SephyTheThird has said, the original media may not have adequate information unlike their adaptations. Not only that, but some media are often working concurrently together. Series such as Kagerou Project that although initially began as a series of music videos, the novels and manga began almost around the same time.

@Juhachi: I designed the second part specifically for up-and-coming articles that don't have a lot of information. Although Witch Craft Works has two sentences, there is a table and the article is still too short to split off the manga list or the episode list, so we can't exclude the tables just yet. If hypothetically there is a anime/manga article that has media made up of three sentences or less each (with no tables), than it can just be called "Media".

However i just modified it to say that if there is not enough information for either media, then it shouldn't have a specific section for it and included a more older and stable article for an example. Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else find any other issue? It seems that the suggestion seems to be moving along well. Its close to getting a consensus, but not quite there. and perhaps i'll move this to an RfC to get broader coverage, but for now, i'm asking for more input from the Wikiproject. Again, i personally believe this is the best format to use for general anime/manga articles. Lucia Black (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we are close to a consensus at all. At the moment it's a discussion with a few comments, I find it difficult to see a leaning towards a specific outcome. Really I'd like to see some actual examples in a sandbox for comparison, the phrasing is complicated enough to make it reasonably difficult to clearly visualise (I'm wired for visuals). Context is everything.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The only really strong oppose is DragonZero and for his own agenda and beliefs of how we should handle anime/manga articles in general. Juhachi only really seemed to target one specific issue, but didn't argue with the rest. so it made me feel optimistic about his vote. same as yours. Anyways, i really don't know how to word it any better. what specific words get you confused? I provided specific example such as links to other articles to know the structure. But i just added in another example. let me know what you think. Lucia Black (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You say vote, but I don't see any voting, merely an exchange of opinions. Now that I can see what you mean I'm not really convinced by some of it. The first part, no problem, it's quite logical. However, why would we combine manga and anime production into the same section? Why limit the anime section simply to release history? i'm really not seeing how this will improve pages. You use School Rumble as an example which is fine as it's an FA, but it's layout has everything to do with being an FA, which isn't likely to be an aim for any other article given the demands in doing so. The next example for the same layout is Sailor Moon which barely uses that layout itself and doesn't show any evidence of benefiting from it (the sole paragraph does complement the rest of the section but only because it's directly relevant to the manga production) - they cancel each other out. Rather than change the MOS into something that means changing all our GA's to meet it, maybe we should focus first on making the MOS relevant to what we have actually been doing as a project and bring it up to standard before we start changing it in this way? SephyTheThird (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, i was "optimistic" about his vote. not there is one. But the discussion is moving smoothly. The third option is used for a number of reasons such as an adaptation/spin off not having enough reception (third-party coverage) to have an article of its own. The other reason could be that the anime/manga might end up being half-length articles if separate, that end up being a whole if together. So its not that either one doesn't have production, release, or reception, it just not enough. The broadcast should also be considered as "release" in this example. But that's generally what makes up a notable article, production/development release, and for TV anime: the extra broadcast. A production section is good for any media in similar fashion of how Reception works in the same way. the Media section just carries anything that doesn't have already have a section of its own such as "Production" or "Reception".

I don't see how School Rumble being an FA actually downgrades it as an example. Sailor Moon is a bit of an excuse as the production of the manga correlates to the anime, but then again that can also happen with other more popular and ongoing series. But the examples were provided are just how it can be done, not that they are the most exemplary articles to follow. Most of the articles i provided aren't GA either but they follow the setup that many have practiced. the first option is mainly made up of articles that i have contributed. The second too, but i dont need articles that i contributed to know this is the norm for that particular situation.

I highly doubt this is a huge change. It really just means slight reorganizing. Keep in mind Sephy, the problems people have brought up have wanted to change anime/manga related articles more than just a tiny update. They want to make bigger changes, this isn't that big of a change but it really puts proper weight into what can. This organization isn't that bad, if it involves updating GA articles, so be it (I highly doubt it will be that much of a chore. And if it is, i volunteer to do it all myself).

So whatever small change you're thinking, it wont stop people from wanting more grander changes, so i'm trying to find a medium that allows us to use "Media" sections with the original unilateral to the adaptations when there is no viable option but at the same time offering that viable options exist.I suppose that even plot differences (if they are significant changes named by reliable sources) can be added in these sections as well, but i would like an answer from you if that's a good compromise. Lucia Black (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify that the third option also allows the adaptation/spin-off to be split if the article is already big enough (and has enough third-party sources), so its still promoting splits when appropriate, but when their not, the organization can be done in a way to be done appropriately. Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I will propose this again when more editors are objectively finding more issues and have god responce. Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

List of anime selected for the Cannes Film Festival

Someone want to take this on? It seems redundant, like creating a sublist of Detective Conan films which were nominated at Japan Academy Prize for Animation of the Year. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth an AFD. There isn't a suitable redirect, and three entries doesn't seem worthy of a page, regardless of any coverage that may exist. If their selection is worthy and can be better sourced/discussed, it can be noted on their individual pages.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian IP strikes again

Once again, our Brazilian friend is changing the importance ratings of articles without any discussion or explanation to articles Tomoharu Katsumata and Shinichirō Watanabe. Given that the person did not participate in the previous discussion about their ratings, I suggest a revert on sight for disruptive behavior and possibly requesting page protection of their respective talk pages. —Farix (t | c) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode count for currently airing series without total

I have a question regarding Tokyo Ghoul and other series currently airing that don't have a projected total episode count. Per Template:Infobox television/doc, it's "The number of episodes released. In case of cancellation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired." Should it list the number that have broadcast so far (as with manga volumes released), with it being updated as more episodes are added to the official websites, labelled as TBA, or have a blank entry, keeping (List of episodes) intact? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would use "TBC or TBA" for newer series that are only a few weeks old (i.e. this season), and either "Ongoing" for longer series (that have passed 26eps for example) or "x as of *insert date*". Although to be honest, I think it's really editor preference unless you want to make it a MOS discussion.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

For an ongoing series, it should be the total number of announced episodes (episodes for which have both titles and broadcast dates). Typically, these dates and titles are announced on a monthly bases. —Farix (t | c) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I bought it up mainly because TBA rings a bit like WP:HAMMER. I know folks like to put that in for recently announced seasons. I certainly don't want to see something like 30+, which is totally annoying when applied to discographies. Ongoing doesn't sound like a bad option though, especially for ones that don't really have a season break. Today (U.S. TV program) has a number (as of date) format, but that's a news program. That could work for a large series where they celebrate every hundred episodes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like blanking out the number of episodes makes it not show the volume list as shown in this latest correction. [2] -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The |episodes= should not be left blank for an ongoing series. Since two episodes have already aired and a third one is already announced with a specific title and date, then the value of the parameter should reflect it. P.S. I've request that the Tokyo Ghoul page be protected do to repeated vandalism involving the number of episodes. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

+4 month old GANs

Just letting everyone know there is a relative new "to do" template here in this talkpage that allows members to see all the current GANS, FACs, FLCs, and Peer Reviews. At the moment we have three 4-month-old GANs: Akane Tsunemori, Cobra (manga), and Uzumaki. It would be great if they can be reviewed.

I personally would review these if i felt more confident on reviewing prose and other aspects. I guess i'm too self conscious. Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Genres

With the ever increasing problem of editors randomly throwing genres into articles without citing any sources, I've made this change to {{Infobox animanga/Header}} documentation. This should give us the bases to remove genres that aren't sourced. Should a similar line be added to MOS:A&M? —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would support this change to the MOS if you want to make it formal. Do it through MOS and then you have an easy place to highlight suitable types of sources.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I too would support this, since genre is a major source of headaches across the project. Perhaps suprisingly Template:Infobox film doesn't have a genre parameter. I seem to recall that the WikiProject found it more trouble than it was worth, and feeling that genre is best communicated in prose instead of by definitive labels. Have you considered omitting genre? Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nation of origin

Hello WikiProject. I'm not a regular contributor, I'm mostly passing through in my typical gnome capacity. Noticed this edit from a user who changed Bakugan Battle Brawlers from a Japanese action-adventure to a Japanese-American action-adventure. I reverted the edit (it is unsourced, there was no explanation for the addition, the prose in the article didn't support the change, and the production companies mentioned appeared to be Japanese) but the user re-submitted the content, countering, "This franchise was licensed by Nelvana, and was released in North America on Cartoon Network, So theres really no need for any of that." I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page about this, but the page isn't very heavily traveled, so I thought I'd drop a line here. It seems absurd to me that licensing the property and releasing the property in the US would somehow change how we describe the origin of the series. I'm also concerned, because the user has made similar changes elsewhere ([3][4] for example). If anybody has any thoughts about this, I'd love to hear 'em. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Bakugan Battle Brawlers goes, it was a Japanese-Canadian co-production between Nelvana, Spin Master, Sega Toys, TMS and Japan Vistec. Because of linkrot, the original URL that was used as the source no longer works, but I've updated it to show the URL. —Farix (t | c) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you, TheFarix. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ao Haru" Ride

Many of you here would have read the manga already and saw what the mangaka wrote about the title. I'm just wondering why an extremely reliable source of knowledge like Wikipedia still has the name mistranslated? I apologise in advance if something has been done about it already, because it is just me getting a bit uneasy when I see the title being Blue Spring Ride. If I remember correctly the two kanji characters do indeed read separately as Blue and Spring respectively. However as a combined word the Kanji means "youth". Aoharaido is just what the mangaka finds easy to call for a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokamoka (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Blue Spring Ride" is the official English translation of the title and per WP:USEENGLISH, that is the title of the article. Whether you agree with the translation of the title or not is irrelevant. —Farix (t | c) 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

agreed, the offical English title may be translated wrong (I don't know Japanese so I can't judge that) but correcting the official English translation is not Wikipedia's job.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese title is just inviting different interpretations by being rendered in kana (often done deliberately for style but sometimes can cause confusion, which again is often deliberate). However the english title would have had to be approved by the Japanese rights holders in any case, and generally the author themselves has little control over things like that unless they are a big name. If the author has specific views over the title that can be properly sourced, than that's good information to include. SephyTheThird (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it only being called "Blue Spring Ride" by Crunchyroll? Because their translations are suspect at times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It was confirmed at the anime expo, so thats the official english name (for now). Lucia Black (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, it's important to remember that translation and localisation are different things and ultimately professional releases (which include CR) as well as games are localised, not simply translated and that can include titles. Secondly it's important to consider that just because CR are releasing something, doesn't mean a print publisher isn't involved. As an example Aijin was licensed by Vertical but their announcement came after CR been running it for a bit. However it turned out that Vertical had not only licensed the series before it was announced for CR but chose the English title and picked the "translator" (a former employee), so they were involved from the beginning. We also know from anime licensing that sometimes English titles are actually picked by the Japanese publisher/licensor/middleman and licensed based on that name, not its original title. Not that any of really makes any difference from a Wiki standpoint, but it's worth considering in general.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well for this title "Ao Haru Ride" appears to be how it is written in English within Japan. Which of course has no bearing on the OP's intention to note that ao (青 "blue") and haru (春 "spring") together are seishun (青春 "youth").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If the IP can source it, we can say that the original Japanese is a play on words sort of speak. Lucia Black (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First. why wasn't this started on the talk page of the article itself?

Second. Provide the sources for the English language translation of the title in the article.

Third. Although I'm not familiar with this series, it is clear, as the OP indicated that the kanji combined (+ ride) mean youth and it is equally clear the mangaka is deliberately playing with sounds, words and their meanings. That can -and probably should- be noted in the article (Sourced from the manga and from the website for the anime), in a similar way as done in the corresponding Wikipedia article in Japanese - where an inline link to the seishun article already exists which helps out Japanese readers - something that isn't available in the English language Wikipedia article although similar notions do exist in the English language. The katakana chosen for the title is an abbreviation and also references one of the possible readings / pronunciations of the separate kanji. The romaji chosen uses ao and haru, not sei and shun. Perhaps also worth mentioning that ao is not always translated as blue but can also be green - and as such has a symbolic meaning of inexperienced/young whereas the symbolism of blue can be nostalgic, sad or even jaded in both Japanese and English. If the OP has sources for something like that directly related to the series I'd appreciate that such info be incorporated in the article, even if not used in the English language Wikipedia article's title. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First, because they chose to have it here. Its no big deal. Second, i'm sure sources are out there. third, this involves more direct referencing. just the kana itself isn't going to help the interpretation. Its better to show the official translations that both English and Japanese go by. IF its a play on words, we still need some form of reliable source stating that it is one. Lucia Black (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note on the talk page for the article. A talk page for an article is the appropriate place to discuss the title of that article. Starting a discussion there and continuing it there will also alert people familiar with and interested in the specific article/series and not just those who monitor this page.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, sources, sources, sources. Thats the key to solving some of the issues. If one can find sources of the author's intention of the title translation, than it can be implemented (while still keeping the official English) Lucia Black (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source of the official English? Is that source already referenced in the article?Verso.Sciolto (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources: [5][6][7][8] Preceding comment added by The Farix.

It is listed as Blue Spring Ride on the Sendai Filmworks website news feed as well. [9]. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats not really whats in question, its the author's intended title. The english title is easy to source. Lucia Black (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of the sources for the title used in English was questioned as well, by Ryūlóng for example who pointed out Crunchyroll's track record and asked if that was the only source. I added an other link to the list given by Farix to show Blue Spring Ride was used on the site of Sentai Filmworks, the company which recently acquired the rights for North America, and that it was thus not merely an error restricted to either Anime News Network or Crunchyroll - if it is an error at all. The name change of the Wikipedia article, on July 5, 2014, coincided with the announcement of that rights acquisition. Making the word "still" in the OP a bit of a puzzle as well since the article was apparently only renamed quite recently and justifiably (if anime title dictates manga title as well in English language Wikipedia articles). It is quite clear from the website of the anime that word play is used. No coincidence that the main character is called Futaba which returns in the logo, while the title abbreviation in katakana ao ha suggests green leaf as well as ao haru - youth.... and yes, I know, sources sources sources. Edited. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"(... if anime title dictates manga title as well in English language Wikipedia articles)" for what it is worth, Shokamoka, it looks like both the French and German translations of the manga were released under the title Blue Spring Ride as well.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Lolicon#Definition of "lolicon" as "all-underage girls", including pubescent and post-pubescent?

Opinions are welcomed regarding the above linked matter -- a discussion about the age range of lolicon characters. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Leading roles in bold

Hi, I've raised this issue with WikiProject Biography, and I'm also floating it here to get more voices to weigh in. I've noticed that a number of articles about voice actors who have acted in Anime list leading roles in boldface. (This is probably best demonstrated though a Wikipedia search for Leading roles in bold). I witnessed an edit-war over this issue a few days ago at Michelle Ruff, and thought that I'd devote some time this week to addressing it globally, since one of the participants was pointing at other articles to make an "other stuff exists" argument. My personal objections to listing leading roles in boldface are as follows: 1) MOS:BOLD discourages boldface anywhere other than the lead sentence, generally speaking. 2) Attributing "leading roles" seems like OR to me, in the way that describing someone as an "antagonist" is considered OR. See WP:ANTAGONIST 3) Most of these lists are unsourced anyway, so we're relying on someone's recollection of the importance of the role to determine "lead". 4) Wikipedia is not IMDb, so only notable roles should be included anyway. 5) Trivia. 6) Christopher Lee is one of the most prolific modern actors, and his filmography doesn't draw special attention to roles considered "lead". I found similar bolding at Yuri Lowenthal and removed it, but it was reverted quickly by a user who explained cryptically, "this is nothing related to him, so don't change it." I'd love to get some comments from the Anime/Manga community about this since it seems more common in your neck of the woods. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Something to consider is that by and large such lists are generally maintained by random editors or others generally not working directly as part of the project (which explains the poor state of them in general). They are also fairly low priority. So while I've no objection to the discussion of the issue, I think that in general any decision may prove difficult to implement on all but a select few high profile articles. However I don't see any reason for our articles to be exempt from the rest of wikipedia in this case. Also, I would note that a lot of anime voice actors are heavily involved with games as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was a discussion at some point that came to a consensus that major roles should not be bolded. Trying to search for it, I found Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_134#Bolding_of_major_roles, which looks like it was started here but then moved to WT:MOS. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_55#Bolding_of_major_roles is also related to that discussion. However, I'm not sure if those were the only discussions on the issue. Anyway, the consensus was that roles should not be bolded. Since almost every anime voice actor page used bolding of major roles before that discussion, there are still a lot left with the roles bolded. However, that is just due to people not editing those articles since the consensus was reached (or due to people not being aware of the discussion). Also, my impression is that the bolding was usually taken from the voice actor pages on Anime News Network, which use bold for any roles entered as primary (generally only the main leads) or secondary (regular or important characters other than the main leads). That was problematic for many reasons, including that ANN's encyclopedia contains user submitted data and thus isn't reliable, that copying which rolls ANN users say are primary and secondary might be a copyright violation (as it is not merely listing facts, but making decisions on how important each roll is), and since many pages here said the bold represented leading rolls, when it actually included secondary roles. So I would definitely remove the bolding where you see it, and refer people to the discussion on WT:MOS that came to the decision not to use bolding. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, brilliant, thanks for including the discussions, I'll take a look at them. And yes, I see and support your point about the potential copyright issues. And Sephy, I appreciate your input as well, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum I just went through about 30 articles and AWBed the shit out of the unnecessary boldface, so in case there is a flare-up of resistance, I might need a little assistance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully this will encourage editors to create and fill in biography sections in the voice actor articles, so they can highlight [sic] their important roles. Some actors do list "lead" or "supporting" on their resumes, although that sometimes conflicts with the show's cast listings. Uncredited roles in video games and shows should not be listed without sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. I see a lot of articles, even ones with lots of eyeballs on them, where minor and even insignificant roles are listed as though we're trying to compete with IMDb or something. Of the stuff I've been correcting today, my favorite was the page that listed "Lead or regular roles in bold". Wow, so we don't even care what we put in bold--lead, regular, whatever..."WHOLE ARTICLE IN BOLD!" Anyhow, it's been amusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "regular" in that case probably meant a regular member of the cast (i.e., a major character appearing in almost every episode, as opposed to a guest star or minor character). That is the sort of role that is bolded on Anime News Network, so if someone copied the bolding from ANN, then saying "lead or regular roles" was more accurate than just saying "lead roles". Of course, the issue of how the bolding is described is completely moot since roles shouldn't be bolded at all. Calathan (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My irrational rage hath been quenched! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The bolding on ANN is also arbitrary. Sometimes just the main character and the heroine are bolded in the first section, and the rest of the ensemble cast is bolded in the second section, although both may be listed in the closing credits together. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So far I haven't noticed any reversions or gotten any angry notes about this. I found a lot more of these than just the original 30, so someone's bound to push back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing you may want to remove are the |known_for= and |credits= parameters in the infobox. This is another area that is riff with original research. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't bother me extensively, but I've found the bolding in those articles very useful in finding the actually significant and notable roles an voice actor has played. It's similar to TV actors who appear in maybe twenty shows, one episode each, as extras, but what the reader is actually looking for is that one show they were a regular or recurring character on. Simply removing the bolding makes reading the article a lot more difficult. If you're removing bold, you should at the very least provide some sort of alternative. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 14:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that's what the consensus in previous discussions indicated as well - i.e. bolding isn't the proper way to highlight the significance of a role but removing the bolding should coincide with incorporating commentary in the prose of the article regarding the nature and significance of a role, provided sources note the role's significance. I don't think it is a good idea to presume all the previous bolding was done arbitrarily but verifying sources for assigning significance is more work than merely taken out bolding indiscriminately.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

*nods* Articles that mention their significant roles are always a lot easier for me. I just wish we didn't remove all bolding using AWB without first executing a backup strategy. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This is why we should write up biographies for these voice actors. The lead paragraphs can highlight the actor's most significant roles which are defined by secondary sources like their guest panelist profiles at anime conventions (although some of those profiles are fairly lousy in that they are just lists of roles), and the biography section can walk through other major roles, starring or supporting, that are definitive to their career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)

Hey guys, speaking to Verso.Sciolto's point and Parent5446's concerns, of all the bolding I removed, none had any clear indication that the lead roles were ascertained with the help of a specific source. That means either that the totality of the bolding was original research, or that the totality of the content, with the determinations of "leading role", was lifted from another source without proper attribution (for example Wikipedia vs ANN) Neither of those scenarios are acceptable, and if there is a copyright violation, the content needs to be removed quickly. Wikipedia doesn't endeavor to be IMDb, or an indiscriminate collection of statistics, so only notable roles should be included anyway. If the subject gained notoriety for portraying the lead character of Brown Algae or whatever, that is best expressed in prose. Additionally, while being generally discouraged by MOS:BOLD boldface is more locally discouraged by WP:FILMCAST, which also discourages interpretations in the form of labels. Though the section is speaking more to the use of "protagonist" and "villain", it could probably be argued that "leading role" is subjective, where "starring role" relates directly to billing. Anyhow, all my edits are clearly summarized, so if anybody wants to browse through my edit history you are welcome to do so. Search for "Contravenes MOS:BOLD". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you took precautions to ascertain that sources weren’t available to verify the information and didn’t arbitrarily remove bolding without making an effort to improve the article(s) - you can see my comment just as a general caveat towards those who do have such tendencies. Neither change for the sake of change nor stagnation is innovation or progress towards a better Wikipedia. Edits need to be bold but good faith is to be assumed - on behalf of the previous editors and on behalf of the editors making the present changes to alter or remove their work.

My concern is that absence of inline references is seen as a sign that no sources exist or may not have been used when articles were created - That may be a backwards approach for biographies of living people and contentious content but I’ve seen rather rash deletion decisions made before by members of this project - members who frequently appear to me to be not particularly more competent or better informed than the editors whose previous contributions they are criticising here. Seems to me that someone with an interest in voice acting wouldn’t have much trouble finding information about the personal background and acting roles performed by Mikako Takahashi. I’ve added an external link for her management agency -which was only wiki-linked before- and I’ve updated what was apparently a dead link for her profile as a recording artist at JVC/Victor. Please, don’t take this the wrong way but since you apparently didn’t spot those I’m not sure how much checking you actually did before stripping out the bolding from that particular article you gave as an example. (The link provided above for some reason re-directed me to Rickard Sandler). And none of the above obviously means I think we should be content with the current state of that article or similar articles about other voice actors. Which brings us back to what AngusWoof has been saying ... . Edit (Indents - Link in my comment corrected).Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mystery of Mamo

A while ago reception information hosted on The Punk Effect[10] was added to the article. I removed it because i)it was added by the original author of the article and so a bit COI and ii)there was no basis for it being considered a reliable source. The Punk Effect does not seem to be a reliable source for criticism in itself, and if it was it would only be for gaming. Neither the Host nor the author of the individual article appear to have any expertise or published history that would pass the WP:SPS aspect of WP:RS for an anime or movie review/criticism/etc. It's unlikely a high school student can be a published expert.

The author who originally added it was ok with me removing it after I discussed it with him. However an IP who has been contributing to the article raised the article on the talk page believing it to be useful for balancing the criticism of the movie. However they have ignored my response and re-added it. I've removed it once again however as myself and the IP have been basically editing against each other for a while, a third party opinion is requested. The Toho Kingdom source is also a concern of mine

Disclaimer:Some information in the article came from a scan supplied by me to Reed Nelson (one of Diskotek's go-to people for their releases) on twitter and therefore I am listed as a source under my old username.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Devil Survivor 2 the animation review

I was reviewing Devil Survivor 2: The Animation but the nominator has been inactive for some time. Maybe somebody could take his place? The issues are very easy to solve and it would be a pity to fail it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tintor2: if no one minds, i'm willing to make the necessary changes in order for it to pass. Lucia Black (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: You are welcome.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been taking a long overdue Wikibreak for a bit, despite monitoring my watchlist. Sorry about this Tintor2. I guess around two weeks will have to do. Time to get back in the game. —KirtZ^Message 15:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Toho Kingdom

Is there any evidence the site has been cited by any of our major RS sources? I did ask elsewhere a while ago and got no response.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a search on Chris Mirjahangir, but I only see a ref from IGN such as [11] which refers to him as a "die-hard fan". Most of the other sites are about his comments on Godzilla, haven't seen where he covers anime or manga. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of anime adaptions from VG articles?

I've noticed that SNAAAAKE!! has been removing anime from two video game related article Valkyria Chronicles and Hyperdimension Neptunia and did not provide a reason for the removals. Should this be a matter that be brought up with WP:VG or should we recover the information into a separate anime article? —Farix (t | c) 18:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Neptunia but IIRC the anime adaption of Valkyria is pretty much identical to the main plot of the game. I would discuss it with WP:VG first as it's a potentially big issue. Really I guess it depends on the level of coverage for the anime adaption on it's own but I'm inclined to go with a combo article for most cases much the same as we do with most manga/anime. A couple of our editors contribute to VG articles, so I'd go with whatever they think. A quick look at their contribs suggest they've decided for themselves to make the episode lists into the actual anime articles, a process that I dislike and ultimately makes more work for other people. Lots of speed editing of decisions that should probably be better considered. I don't make that many edits in such a short time when rewriting just a single article. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)SephyTheThird (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hyperdimension Neptunia's anime storyline is a completely different storyline to any of the games (to be honest, it's more like a "guess which of your favourite game character waifus we're introducing THIS episode!" kind of fanservice), unlike the case with Valkyria Chronicles. I'm not sure what the ideal solution to fixing the article would be, but the two cases would probably need to be approached in different manners. Also, as far as I know, the anime for Blade & Soul has a completely original story and set of characters from the MMORPG it's based on (I wouldn't exactly know myself, never played the game). --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone's made standalone episode list articles instead of proper anime articles, it was fixed, you're welcome. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a fix, quite the opposite. Those are legitimate spin out articles. Refrain from suggesting you've done us a favour.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A standalone episode list is not a replacement for an article, especially considering that the standing consensus has been us use a single article to cover VG, manga, and anime unless there are significant plot and/or character differences between them. —Farix (t | c) 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that at the VG project we have had problems with the user SNAAAAAKE!! and their unilaterial decisions on articles. I disagree with their remove for the reasons they site above, and believe they should be included as they were, and it seems the anime project would agree with that. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

[12] [13] - you mean "lists of episodes", eh? It wasn't lists of episodes. This is a list of episodes: List of Game of Thrones episodes. And that's all. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the splits and returned the episode lists back to their original names. And both links you posted are very well developed episode lists. The GoT list you posted is very bare bones and would not make it as a FL. —Farix (t | c) 19:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Would someone tell me what "episodes" asre being "listed" in the following?

Please point me to all the titles of these "episodes" being allegedly "listed" above. Thanks! --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The list follows the lead section. You can't point to just the lead section and call it an article. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"the standing consensus has been us use a single article to cover VG, manga, and anime unless there are significant plot and/or character differences between them." - and this why you didn't have a DBZ article for a longest time (until 2013), and this is why you can't have nice things. And what you call a "lead section" there is just a literally duplicated content that is spamming a video game article instead of having its own article, where it can be just once, instead of in 2 places at once. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, anime/manga info in VG articles are now spam? I'm sure that you will find no one here or in WP:VG that will agree with that. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I know I am not an active member of this particular discussion, but I just wanted to say how ridiculous of a statement you just made, SNAAAAKE!!. Chambr (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

List cleanup, finding missing entries

This might be slightly getting off a tangent, but I just noticed that List of anime based on video games really needs a cleanup. Also, since the list definitely isn't complete, is there any way to boolean join Wikipedia categories to find out what missing entries are out there? Something similar to

SELECT 2009_Anime.Title FROM 2009_Anime, 2009_Video_games WHERE 2009_Anime.Title = 2009_Video_games.Title;

like in SQL? (Years are just an example) The same probably applies for List of video games based on anime or manga as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Films

Hey guys/girls. The Dragon Ball franchise (DB, DBZ, DBGT) has an abnormal amount of films associated with it. What would you guys think about the creating of a list style article of the films associated with this franchise? Thanks for any input/advice. Chambr (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It already exists, Chambr. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen it, nor come across it. It must be because I am just now beginning to get into the Anime and Manga Wikiproject. Thanks. In the words of Yoda, "How embarrassing" Chambr (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eren Yeager

I tried creating the article Eren Yeager but my edit was reverted by Ryulong. The article passes WP:Notability, has most of its previous issues fixed, and has enough weight. Why shouldn't it stand on its own? Please discuss in Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Rework because Ryulong's actions are getting tiring.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on how the sources that were used in the article were all just reviews that did not focus on the character. The "reworked" version is the same. It's reviews of episodes or the show as a whole being used to support the main character's notability. Tintor2 often creates articles for these main characters when the list of characters suffices.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLAR was challenged - the only way to revert it back to userification/redirect is to properly AFD it to determine that consensus. I have undone Ryulong's second blank and redirect as a result. If anyone still questions its notability, WP:AFD is thataway. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This is why "significant coverage" means nothing. Tezero (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eren Yeager.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Ryulong added a notability tag for no reason. I reverted it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Modifications to display of Template:Japanese episode list

I have proposed some minor aesthetic (but kind of a pain in the ass technical) changes to {{Japanese episode list}} here. It basically brings the formatting in line with the display of the {{Nihongo}} family of templates.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kin-iro Mosaic genre discussion

More input would be appreciate in discussing about whether Kin-iro Mosaic is in the yuri genre. The discussion is at Talk:Kin-iro Mosaic#Yuri genre. —Farix (t | c) 02:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality assessment of character and episode lists

I've noticed that @Gabriel Yuji: changed the quality assessment status of a number of character and episode lists to list class. In the past, the project had agreed that character and episode lists were to be assessed as Start, C, or B (leaving List for pages that will be nothing more than a bare list) given that there were no other quality assessments for list other than "List" and "Featured List". This, of course, helped editor identify the state of a particular list and if it needed more work. Does this position still have consensus or are we, as a project, giving up on assessing the quality of lists? —Farix (t | c) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the article-quality metric for lists that are prose-based. This was clearly a good faith edit, though, aimed at standardization. This is just a general thing that not everyone's aware of: not all projects use the same metric. For example, the Chemicals WikiProject doesn't even distinguish for GA and FA; it simply has an A-class that also covers articles with no GA or FA distinction. Likewise, WikiProject Military History has a full scheme for lists (IIRC: Stub-List, Start-List, CL, BL, FL). Tezero (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, thanks, Farix, you started the discusion I was thinking to start. IMO, it's too difficult to assess (regular) articles; to assess lists is even more complicated... Lists are (usually) short (even FLs) compared to regular articles thus I think it's a trouble to measure the completeness of them (IMAO, of course). I'm open to hear contrary opinions, though; but if it will be defined, I ask clarity. Between this and this what's the best list? I'd say Bleach... but our assessment scale says Da Capo... There's no source on it unless the ANN encyclopedia (not a RS)... We need some update at least if we will continue to rank lists. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what is so hard or complicated with assessing articles or lists up to C. It is the push form C to B or on up to FL that it get difficult. But in general assessments up to C should be no problem at all. If you don't think a specific example is not a good representation of the class, that is another discussion. —Farix (t | c) 18:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then try to explain what's difference between a list to a C or a B list. A C-list should have what that a list doesn't have? And a B must have what that a C-list doesn't have? It's no clear on the assessment scale. Are the differences the summaries, the prose above it... what? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

B1 pass if information in lead and airdates/episode titles are sourced, B2 pass if summaries are all there, B3 if lead is complete and summaries are not fancruft long. That's what I go by. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

With regards to Bleach vs Da Capo - it was decided that a list be classified as list class if it mostly consist of transposed lists, instead of prose (as is the case with the Bleach list) (See Wikipedia:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment guidelines in this regard). If you like, I can go search for the relevant discussions in this regard. G.A.S^talk 09:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bleach page may be meticulously cited but it's got a grand total of two (now three) readable paragraphs in it. A show with 2-3 seasons can reasonably cover the entire thing in one page and will therefore be, at least in its theoretical final form, mainly reviewable prose. A show with 16 (if it ever comes off hiatus, 18-20) seasons, on the other hand, gives you a master list that looks more like a phonebook and it's not very helpful to try and letter grade its writing quality. --erachima talk 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's okay. Thank you, everyone. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:A&M/ORS

Hi, everyone. I've just added The Fandom Post to the project's library of online reliable sources per this discussion. Thoughts?

Also, I want to ask: should we add Shaenon K. Garrity to "individuals". I saw this discussion but I don't see her in the list. I guess she has credentials enough (in fact, she's already been cited in several of the project's articles). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

She's a freelance editor for Viz, so her comments in the publications are primary sourced, much like Carl Gustav Horn's footnotes, so are you asking if her blog should be considered? -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... but by saying she is a primary source you say she can't she be used for reception on Viz's manga? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some reception based on first-party sources. Lucia Black (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, her blog should be usable as WP:SPS, but you can't use a SPS for talk about living people. I discovered this when investigating if I could use one of her entries about Carl Horn for Excel Saga. Therefore it may limit what can be used. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Sephy. I only used it on Dance till Tomorrow's reception so that's okay. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Vampires in anime... and manga

Hm... not sure if it's best place to propose it but there is a category titled Vampires in manga and another titled Vampires in anime. The categories of this project generally encompasses anime and manga when possible (e.g. Anime and manga by genre, Anime and manga terminology), so these two should be merged into Vampires in anime and manga in my opinion. Thoughts? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be the standard categorization snafu when Category:Anime and manga by _______ and Category:_______ in comics collide. I support the merge, practical utility outranking strict logical coherence of category trees. --erachima talk 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On further review, note that the naming convention would actually be Category:Vampire anime and manga, according to most contents of Category:Anime and manga by topic. Which would leave e.g. Alucard out of it. --erachima talk 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, erachima, "Vampire anime and manga" seems the most appropriate title. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion sounds like the place to propose it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 3#Category:Vampires in manga. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 C-class

I'm not so sure we're ready for making the top C-class articles into B-class or GA. I think they stayed that way for a reason, but i think we can at least try to see where we stand. Here are the top 10 C-class articles.

• Hayao Miyazaki
• Hentai
• Studio Ghibli
• Sword Art Online — B-class.
• Pokemon (anime)
• Fairy Tail
• Dragon Ball Z
• Digimon
• Sailor Moon
• Gurren Lagann

Hope nothing but the best. Lucia Black (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be archived for a while either like the previous list. Its motivating to see this here. —KirtZ^Mail 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

i made it so it wont archive until august considering this is a much bigger project. Lucia Black (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well at the very least Sword Art Online made it to B-class. —KirtZ^Mail 13:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it could be a GA candidate, assuming the sources I'm not familiar with are reliable. Tezero (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tezero; a production section section is always good, though. However, if we are looking for GAs, the B-class articles should be better. I see some very, very, very promising ones. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, not a complaint about poor importance/reputation-based prioritization (I am so not one to talk), but I'm kinda surprised there aren't more Miyazaki-related GAs or FAs. (Spirited Away's the only one as far as I know.) It seems like artists of various media and media franchises that are as consistently critically acclaimed and popular as him usually have plenty here. (e.g. Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Halo, Final Fantasy) Tezero (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I've already stopped to wonder about it... to start let's say that anime are not high culture or history (you know, people doesn't take Pokémon too serious [it's in our scope too] as other subjects). As otaku and hikikomori we tend to prefer things that are not that good but nonetheless some people like. (PS: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and The Castle of Cagliostro are also GAs) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit harder than it looks. Perhaps B-class to GA-class would be easier. or maybe we should go back to stubs/start-class to C-class. Lucia Black (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to lend a hand at converting more Start-class articles to C-class if another top 10 list was posted. It was really effective the last time around. —KirtZ^Mail 22:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with KirtZJ. Maybe should we have goals to reach like WP:VG? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've asked people if they were willing to make something VG, but unfortunately, no one responded. Lucia Black (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm... I didn't see it... I don't know if it's enough but for the record: I'd go for it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

MyAnimeList as external link

What benefit is there to linking to MyAnimeList? MyAnimeList is an open database that allows editors to add or change content. However, unlike ANN's encyclopedia which contains links to articles and reviews about the entry, MyAnimeList does not add anything that isn't already in the article. As far as I can tell it doesn't meet any of the conditions at WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. On top of that, MyAnimeList overtly links to fansub groups, which would be prohibited on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. As an external link, I don't think it should be one we should be using. —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Any specific problem, or just for the sake of record? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a specific problem. But to establish a consensus before removing the links altogether. There is likely to be some contention about removing the links and I wanted to point to a discussion on the matter. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the reasoning makes perfect sense. While I make use of it to keep a ongoing record of what I've watched/read so I know where I am when returning to something, it's really not a suitable resource of any kind. I see no reason for us to direct to what essentially amounts to fan scores, forum comments and fan groups. It arguably fails at least 3 points of WP:ELNO but the Copyright concerns are enough of a reason on their own.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's already on the unreliable list for WP:ANIME/RS and many of the summaries and character descriptions for the series reference Wikipedia so that would be WP:CIRCULAR. I don't see any staff articles. Was there a plan to create a template like perhaps with Crunchyroll and Hulu? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK most/all "staff" are picked from site users to be moderators more than running the site as a "formal" operation. While the site may be on the unreliable list, I'd bet most editors have never read it. Even then, that might just stop them from using it as a source but not from using it as an EL. I'm not sure there is much control of Els in general on our pages for the most part.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is discussion using MAL as a reliable source (it isn't per WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The links to fansubers are what concern me the most. I know that links to mangaupdates.com (aka Baka-Updates) are frequently removed for similar reasons. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well apparently, there is a link template at {{Mal}}, which should be sent to TfD as part of this discussion. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominated the template for deletion. We will see the outcome before removing the remaining MAL links. —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Highschool of the Dead to High School of the Dead

Should we move Highschool of the Dead to High School of the Dead. I have never seen either the manga or anime spelled as one word. I own them all and I double checked myself too. Even on sites like Amazon, it is spelled as two separate words. Chambr (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just go with the title that Sentai Filmworks or Yen Press use in press releases. —KirtZ^Message 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yen Press uses Highschool of the Dead.[14] Given that the manga is the original media, the article should stick to that name. For example, Chibi Vampire instead of Karin. —Farix (t | c) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Chambr (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Katsudō Shashin FAC

I've nominated Katsudō Shashin as a Featured Article, and invite you to take part in the review here. Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Crunchyroll News

Im not sure if this was brought up before. What are some thoughts on the use of news articles taken from Crunchyroll? Should we add it to the WP:A&M/ORS list, whatever sub-section that may be? I think there is some merit in using it, much for the same reasons that we use ANN. —KirtZ^Message 03:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

For announcements for what Crunchyroll is streaming, it is definitely a reliable source. For news articles like this or pop-culture articles, let's just say that we don't know who their editorial staff are or how they are structured to determine if there is any kind of editorial oversight.[15] So it comes down to establishing if it has a repudiation for fact checking and accuracy, which would be extremely difficult without first establishing that it has editorial oversight. —Farix (t | c) 03:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would never use CR as a source, even for it's own titles. Generally ANN reports on everything they do so I've never seen the need. SephyTheThird (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I mainly use the CR articles by Scott Green. But you can see Crunchyroll News Team. I'd stay away from the moderator ones and those icons; that seems to be more for their forums. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

While ANN is a highly reliable news source, I've noticed that most of the articles here simply rely on that one source to cite developments. Especially the newer ones. I thought having a different perspective would be a good thing from a site most people are already familiar with as well. Should we add it to the WP:A&M/ORS list as another option? —KirtZ^Message 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be under Situational section if implemented. Lucia Black (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

RS evaluation of anime-planet.com

I know that this site does not meat WP:EL critical for an external link. However, I've noticed it being referenced several times in articles, mainly for plot information.[16] The reviews appear to be user submitted and would fail WP:SPS. I cannot tell if the other information on the site is user edited or not. The only previous discussion on the website was over whether it complied with WP:EL. —Farix (t | c) 13:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like someone rewrites their summaries or at least plans to according to this: [17] The reviews are user-submitted however the video links are provided with a partnership with Crunchyroll. The staff section looks to be "a single admin and a handful of volunteers": [18]. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything to suggest we should use this site. A partnership with Crunchyroll etc (assuming they are officially sanctioned) would seem to benefit the providers as free advertising more than suggest any quality of the site. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it from the "External links" sections and where its reviews have been referenced as part of a reception section. But there are still a number of references to plot elements and staff that I believe could be better referenced to other sources. —Farix (t | c) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Young" roles

There was a discussion back at Talk:Free! (anime)#Character section comments on whether the "young" voice actor roles (meaning, if a certain character, for example in a flashback, is given a different voice actor than their normal because of a need for a "younger" voice) that used to be in that article should be included. As you can imply by the tense of my sentence, the consensus was to remove them. However, several articles, such as Oreimo and Tokyo Ravens, still have in their character lists at least one mention of a "young" role. So, should articles that have "young" roles continue to be included in articles which have them, or should they be removed? Or should their inclusion be on a case-by-case basis? The arguments against their use are explained by KirtZJ in the aforementioned discussion; however, I am neither in favor nor against the inclusion of such information in articles. I just want to see what consensus there is for their inclusion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on whether the young voice was used often enough to be worth mentioning. Just use your best judgment. --erachima talk 10:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I had proposed it to be removed because the profiles for the official anime website do not consider them significant enough to include on their main character page, leading me to believe that the "young" character is as about as notable as a guest character. For young ones in major roles (i.e. Dragon Ball) or for character articles, it can be retained. If they stay in a guest/recurring basis, they should be referenced properly with episodes involved, since digging up a Train Heartnet (young) reference can be a real pain and a barrier to getting an article properly referenced towards B or GA/FL class. They can stay on a VA's filmography. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider them notable enough to include in an article if a series has one or two flashbacks because as you said they are a headache when it comes to finding reliable references. I think it's one of those things that the community seems to somewhat ignore because in almost every instance I've seen mentions of "young", none of the VAs (including the normal ones) are sourced even. At the same time, it's usually an IP who adds them, and they may have just been fanning on good faith. Another thing we have to consider is that the "young" thing can quickly become useless spam if a series gets an English release and we end up with at least 4 VAs for one character. However when it comes to improving class-status of an article, I would remove them if they cant be reliable sourced. —KirtZ^Message 17:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncredited parallel universe characters

I have this situation where the VA voices the main character's parallel universe equivalent and also their's character mother, however, neither of the two voices are listed in the closing credits, and I can't find a reliable source that confirms this (ANN encyclopedia can't be used, and BTVA doesn't show a checkmark for confirmed voices). The editor has insisted it be left alone because they've confirmed the voice matches themselves, and that all the main characters do their parallels anyway HERE. So should the characters be kept or not? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, not based on their arguments given that they are as WP:OR as can be.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:BLP. If it cannot be cited to a reliable source, it should be on the page, period. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the statement there's no need for proof, it's obviously her is so clearly OR that it'snot even up for debate.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's that obvious that Protagonist and Evil Protagonist have the same voice, to the point that nobody thought of crediting the role separately, then we don't need to include the second VA credit in the first place. --erachima talk 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Shot in the dark request (Zombie Powder)

Do any of the regulars happen to own the first volume of Zombie Powder? And if so, would you be willing to scan a specific page from it? There are some decade-old scans out there on the web, of course, but they're so artifacty that I'm concerned there'll be quality issues even when cleaned up and downsized for article use. --erachima talk 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for the original Japanese or English - because you said "decade old"? I might have it in my library, bundled in with my old CLAMP stuff for no particular reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the art I'm after, not the text, so either version will probably work. --erachima talk 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, I want page 36. --erachima talk 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and used the decade-old scan, and as I suspected it's got image quality issues that neither basic cleanup tricks nor downsizing alleviated. afaict it was scanned into the windows XP version of paint as a .jpg and the resulting scuzziness is not correctable short of effectively redrawing the page myself to counteract artifact losses. So if you've got the page, I'd definitely appreciate a cleaner version. Still, better for illustration than nothing for the moment. Also, page is up for WP:GAN. --erachima talk 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Transformers: Robots in Disguise needs disambiguation assistance

Transformers: Robots in Disguise has been converted to a disambiguation page as a result of the creation of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series). The vast majority of links to Transformers: Robots in Disguise will need to be converted to the former primary topic, Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series), but this task can't be fully automated as there are likely a few links that should be redirected to one of the other two links on that disambiguation page. WP:AWB may be useful for completing this task. This is now the top unaddressed item on the Disambiguation pages with links, with just over 150 links to clean up. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a Hero

So, I Am a Hero is currently 1 kb of establishing notability and 28 kb of unadulterated plot summary. Anyone want to tackle that? --erachima talk 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If it establishes notability, no amount of plot summary can take that away. (Of course, establishing notability is an incredibly subjective and wishy-washy, yet rigidly enforced all the same, process.) Tezero (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The current notability establishment is "Won national award" + "declared best thing ever by bluelinked critic", so that's not what I'm concerned about. Rather, I suspect that anyone who decides to try and fix the page into readability is going to be in for a fight with the IP editor who's built the Great Wall of Text there over several months. --erachima talk 05:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily chop the text down (though I've never read it, but I can make some degree of improvement I'm sure), if someone else handles media info.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

After having a closer look I can do a phased reduction once I'm at my laptop and not on a phone or tablet. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagging it with plot. A lot of it can go into the List of chapters/light novels -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Also tagged the ZQN for original research/synthesis. I'd suggest cutting that section altogether. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential reliable source

The ANN writer Lynzee Lamb has her own blog where she writes reviews. Could this count as a reliable source? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly yes but only for opinion, of course. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Titling of Nanoha series article

Given the notability of the Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha series as a franchise with multiple iterations in both anime and manga, do you think we should retitle Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha (series) as simply Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha and move the current article with that name, the original 2004 TV anime series titled Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, to something along the lines of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha (2004 TV series), falling more in line with franchises such as Pretty Cure and several video game franchises? I asked in the series article and they reccomended I ask the anime project peeps. Wonchop (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is likely to be an RfC addressing precisely that issue in the near future, I would highly suggest you not make any changes at the moment.

...which I suppose makes this as good a time as any to announce that, according to some preliminary agreement at WP:AN, we will be hosting an RfC on the content forking/franchise article issue soon. --erachima talk 10:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'd know how to go about it if I was to. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Wonchop (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When people look up "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha", what exactly are they expecting? An article on the entire franchise or an article about the first anime series? —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure, but given the recent buzz about an upcoming ViVid anime, as well as the recent films, people would probably be looking more into the franchise than the specific series, at least in my opinion. I guess you just gotta look at that question the same way you look at various video game series. Wonchop (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is already three anime series and several manga adaptions. I don't think the addition of one more anime series is going to change which article users searching the terms "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha" are expecting to find. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, either way, it's still more likely to be the franchise than the specific series. Wonchop (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How are you so sure? What evidence do you have to support this? —Farix (t | c) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the use of 'in my opinion'. It's not like there's a poll I can look up that specifically caters to this particular dilemma. It's just the general feeling that Nanoha is used to refer more to the franchise, with people being more specific if referring to the series itself. Again, there's a tonne of series that use the mindset. Wonchop (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That other series uses a franchise article as the main topic isn't a good enough reason for this particular case. If I search for "Ghostbusters", am I expecting to find the article on the original film or on the entire franchise? More than likely, I'm looking for the original film. Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha seems to fall into the same category. —Farix (t | c) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's cos it's freaking Ghostbusters, which is far more notable than any other part of its franchise, so it's not really fair to compare it in that manner. Nanoha is more akin to, say, someone looking up Call of Duty. People tend to use the term to refer to either the franchise or the current iteration as opposed to the original 2003 game. Like everything else, it's a case-by-case thing, and in this case, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha feels more like a franchise name than a season 1 name. Wonchop (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then this goes back to how you are sure that when someone searches for "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha" that they are looking for the franchise article instead of the article on the original series. You have yet to support your claim that they are looking for the franchise article over the original series. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've only got my opinions to go on, but don't forget that you're in the same boat too, so it's probably better we wait for other people to weigh in rather than go in circles. Maybe just wait and see how that RfC whatchamacallit mentioned above pans out. Wonchop (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not in the same boat because I'm not the one calling for a change in which one is the main article. —Farix (t | c) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but you had to step onto the boat to argue against it. Anyway, let's just wait it out for now. Wonchop (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nanoha is more akin to, say, someone looking up Call of Duty."

{{citationneeded}} --erachima talk 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if it helps any, looking up "Nanoha" (not the full title) currently redirects to the franchise. -AngusWOOF (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's useful to know. Since both Nanoha and to an extent Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha can refer to either the franchise, the first series anime, or the character Nanoha Takamachi, the franchise should ideally be the default in this case. Wonchop (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Uzumaki organizational question

The article Uzumaki needs a second opinion on the GAN, you can post your opinion here. This GAN has been up for a long time, it would be great to get opinions rolling. Lucia Black (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would actually prefer the second opinion NOT come from a project regular. Avoids partiality complaints and gets better insight into whether the page makes sense to an unfamiliar reader. --erachima talk 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, there is a question you can help with. [19] vs. [20] as an organization scheme for the media and release information. The WP:MOS-AM standard is "Production" + "Media", I've used "Development" + "Media", Lucia wants "Development" + "Releases" + "Related media". --erachima talk 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Either is fine. MoS AM's credibility was brought into question when it is revealed it didn't go through the process needed to make it an MoS. Aside from that, FA's requirement for structure is also basically "as long as its neat and readable" DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Said "process" is fictitious.

That misunderstanding aside, the question isn't which is permissible, it's which is better. --erachima talk 02:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. The process thing was brought up in that large discussion about the MoS and it made sense to me. I don't know what to say though. Are you looking for some vote by the project? What I meant was a straw vote doesn't seem the right way to go, and a discussion about this brought up earlier in the year was inconclusive. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why i believe it is beneficial to have Releases + Related media is because that 80% of the information is heavily focused on the manga. While the other media barely gets any mention. Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have any cards on the table one way or the other; I agree that the GA and FA criteria for organization don't necessitate much beyond being "neat and readable". My impression, though, is that we should separate by medium if the plots are substantially different (basically, FMA rather than Death Note) and keep a general "Releases" section otherwise; I don't know anything about Uzumaki so I couldn't tell whether that's the case here. Tezero (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are alternate endings to the live action and even the video games due to being developed/produced before the original manga is finished. the only one having a separate article is the live-action film, but other than that. The decision was mainly done by what the article focuses on most.

Speaking of Fullmetal Alchemist, there is more anime-tangent media such as Art books and CDs. so that has to be merged to the respected Anime articles. Lucia Black (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Uzumaki's adaptations are one live-action film with its own article, which the page does not attempt to summarize, and a couple video games that are unlikely to ever get pages unless someone from WP:VG decides to be a real completionist about minor franchise-based Wonderswan titles.

My stance on the matter is simply that, as reviewer, I found "Releases" and "Related Media" to be mildly confusing/misleading section titles. I would expect "Related Media" to essentially be a more descriptive "See Also" section, which contained things that were relevant to the series but were not Uzumaki titles. Like if a character from the series had appeared in a different manga by Ito, or if another author set a series in the same city, or if it had one of the third-party "guidebooks" that are commonly written for uber-popular franchises like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Direct adaptations of the work and licensed products generally appear either in a section called "Adaptations" or "Media." --erachima talk 04:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Related Media does imply a looser relationship between the series and its spinoffs. How about just renaming related media to adaptions then? (EX Tales of Symphonia) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I considered that but think it results in badly arranged section headings.

• Releases

• Volume list

• Adaptations

• Video Games
• Film

vs.

• Media

• Volume list
• Video games
• Film

and the obvious compromise option would simply be excessive

• Media

• Volume list
• Adaptations

• Video games
• Film

So, yeah, aesthetic complaint with having a section with a single subheader or having multiply-nested sections, primarily. --erachima talk 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont find it confusing, nor misleading. You mentioned "as a reviewer", does that mean that you're using a different perspective? the media is "related" to the main media, (the manga). And yes, there is a "looser" relationship implication. I'm not really sure a section of "adaptation" is necessary, as the video games aren't direct adaptations, and there is definitely enough to be "loose". Uzumaki however benefits from not having any guidebooks, or other complimentary media. Lucia Black (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer, I attempt to look at articles as someone who's come to the page to learn about the subject. (By contrast to the editor's perspective who's come to see whether the article on the subject matches what he knows about the subject.) Principle of least surprise is significant in that context. --erachima talk 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It sounds more like a "hypothetical" issue than a real issue. I organized the article with the reader in mind which i believe also correlates with the GA criteria. If the editor knows more about the subject, then don't you think that helps the situation? So i don't understand the problem with the previous rendition, even for a reader who knows nothing about the topic. I don't see how confused they will be. Like i said, the article focuses "heavily" on the manga. Down to development and Reception, putting the manga in the same section implies the media is "equal" to each other (which their not).

Keep in mind, one of DragonZero's edits was also related to this in Rozen Maiden which i contested before in the past because other media articles don't use universal "Media" sections (although i believe anime/manga differs greatly from most media when it comes to media-relationship). Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"putting the manga in the same section implies the media is "equal" to each other"

Ah, THAT'S the problem? I've spent this whole discussion trying to figure out what issue you had with the standard organization. Anyway, short answer? Nobody else thinks it implies that, and the manga is listed first in the section anyway. --erachima talk 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the standardization is a little too universal and at the moment its still up to debate, relationship between media differs a little more with anime/manga media. So, yes it is a problem for me. And If i think it implies that, then others might believe so as well. And it does imply that "objectively" (not subjectively). All media unilaterally in a single section, together will make believe that the media is indeed "Equal" to each other. Can you find a way to explain how it can't with just the setup that you're proposing? Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Explain" what? It simply doesn't mean that, and it's frankly baffling to me that you think it's an issue. --erachima talk 05:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking if you could explain how it doesn't imply that the media is universally equal. If it baffles you that i think its an issue, then it should be fine to have the setup from before. But i do believe its an issue, so i will explain further. Objectively it does imply what i stated as a first time reader. The previous set up that had before was organized that the related media was an aspect of the original and that it is tangent aspect, just like "Reception", "Development", and "Release". However, merging release into a universal "Media" section shows something else entirely. Now, the article implies its focused on all three media universally. Its not entirely crazy to believe that the article focuses on all three. And the The main subject of the article is the manga. Its passable IM when theres development/reception information of the anime or if the original media isn't notable. but for Uzumaki, its not the case. (if you want me to clarify why i find that to be the exception, i can, but i think its easy to understand). Lucia Black (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't. Section header divisions imply separation and subtopicality, not some sort of moral judgment about the supremacy or equality of one thing or another.

I'm really not sure how to say anything else on the subject. This is such a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how organization works that there's really no way for me to talk about it without lapsing into incivility via severe condescension. You're just going to have to believe me here that when I say that your perspective isn't just wrong, it's incomprehensibly wrong I am attempting to put that as nicely and matter-of-factly as I can. --erachima talk 06:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't explain it, i can't understand your reasoning. Section Header divisions does indeed imply separation and subtopicality. But that only hleps my argument, not hurt it. Is manga a subtopic of its own? No....so instead of a media section where the manga is part of the adaptations/spin-off media. Having no "Manga" section and a "related media" section shows that the video games and live-action film is encompassed by the manga rather than being encompassed by a singular subtopic. The article isn't about a "franchise" its about a single media. Lucia Black (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The media section groups release information. All three of those sub-sections consist entirely of release information and therefore should go together. --erachima talk 06:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you think about it a little more carefully, having all releases together (both original media and spin-off/adaptations) implies that all media is "equal", and to clarify by "equal" i'm saying that the article is about those three media, but its not, Uzumaki is strictly focused on the manga. Just because the section in question consists of release information doesn't mean we have to universally organize the information together by releases. The "related media" section is also focused on release information but a specific type of release. It focuses on other media that's not the original, because that helps show that "related media" is an aspect based on the main topic of the article (in this case, the manga). But a general media section suggests that the article focuses on all the media as the primary topic.

The organization you want would normally be fine if there was more coverage on the other media such as development or reception, and the article wasn't so heavily focused on a single media. But as you can clearly see, the article is heavily focused on the manga. For example: Adventure Time. And i wont buy that its not anime/manga. There has to be a "reason" why anime/manga has different modes, and i have been analyzing it for some time now. And there is a difference, but its not a universal difference. Lucia Black (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time's formatting is, incidentally, terrible. In their case, either of the following would be dramatic improvements:

• Releases

• Broadcast
• Home Video

• Other media

• Comic books
• Video games
• Merchandise

Or simply

• Media

• Episodes
• Comic books
• Video games
• Merchandise

Certainly emphasizes that GA doesn't care how your headers are sorted though. --erachima talk 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A good point with the single subheading thing, I just went back and decided to add TOC limit to two of my articles. If it were me, I'd just use a semi-colon subheading for volume list with Lucia's format. Aside from that, the structure shouldn't be holding up the GA review. If structure isn't the cause of the hold up, I could act as a second opinion (I've done twenty something reviews) if that is fine. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The organizational point shouldn't hold up the GA nom regardless. And I appreciate the offer, but the second opinion request is essentially for someone to verify my impartiality in evaluating the article, which has (not for me specifically, but in other cases I've observed) been an issue at GAR. So it's kinda not helpful to go from 2 WP:ANIME members to 3 WP:ANIME members. --erachima talk 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen WP:VG handle their own media, aswell. The fact that this is divided shows that it is indeed "impartial". what impartiality would you consider? you're using MOSAM, but looking for a group see a side outside of it. Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia, your argument is based entirely on an attribution of value judgment to our section headers and idiocy to our readers that I find, bluntly, insane. The fact that the article is about the manga is made perfectly clear by the way the article spends 90% of its time discussing the manga, and no person who reads English could possibly be confused about which came first or was the main medium.

In any case, I think the argument's played out at this point, we've made our cases and if some other editor agrees with you that it's worth changing I won't object. --erachima talk 08:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What i present is what other wikiprojects and other mediums present....its not "idiocy". If you truly believe that, i highly suggest you challenge it to every other wikiproject that follows the same setup.

And yes, the fact that the article is made up of 90% manga shows that article should be organized in a way that highlights that. You're only shooting insults at this point. Lucia Black (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming idiocy on the part of our readers. --erachima talk 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No i'm not....if i am, other wikiprojects are assuming idiocy as well as they follow the same organization. And lets just say for a moment that i am assuming "idiocy" as you put it, providing a clearer way isn't a bad thing anyways. The organization i propose still compliments the topic better. Lucia Black (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they came by their titles innocently enough. There isn't One True Heading Format, after all. The problem here is your specific argument in favor of your preferred format: that readers of an article that is 90% focused on one subject will be utterly and helplessly misled because the subject headings were grouped on the basis of content similarities. That argument unambiguously assumes the readers are morons, is completely implausible, and shouldn't be given any weight. --erachima talk 11:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start off with a TLDR and state that the article structure on the MOS should not be taken as the end-all-be-all. In fact, I often wonder if how we cover related media could not be better in how it is structured. In the past, I've tried to experiment by renaming the "Media" section to "Adaptations" or "Related media" on new articles with the primary work in a "Publication/release history" section separate from the other media, only to have someone come in and blindly citing the MOS as to why that structure was "wrong". —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for flexibility when warranted, but am having difficulty thinking of a series for which the publication/adaptations division doesn't result in either an orphaned subheader problem or one extremely brief main heading. Uzumaki is a good example of the former issue since it necessarily includes its volume list, Fullmetal Alchemist of the latter since its publication history is largely spun-out onto its own list. In either case, trying to sort the media section out by type results in bad article outline structuring.

It works well for non-serial media though. Fate/stay Night, for instance. --erachima talk 20:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by an "orphaned subheader" problem? Uzumaki with the inclusion of the volume list (its too small to split on its own).The problem like you mentioned in your discussion is that the article isn't organized like a multi-media series, its organized like a single media is the focus, at least the one with my rendition. Lucia Black (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't work. Simply take what would fall under the first media sub-section—which is the primary work—and rename it Release/Publication history depending on the medium. Then rename the rest of the media section "Adaptations" or "Related media" depending on the context. I can easily do that for Uzumaki right now. —Farix (t | c) 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly how it was organized before. There was a "Release" section and a "Related media" section. Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So.... What was the problem exactly? That someone was misreading the MOS? —Farix (t | c) 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Help save an article?

The article Tonari no Kashiwagi-san is currently up for AfD. I don't read Japanese, so I'm having some trouble finding sources. I'm not entirely sure that there's enough notability to save the article, but I'd appreciate someone coming in to help search. It could redirect to Manga Time Kirara Forward, but that has a lack of sourcing as well- anyone interested in working on one or both articles? MTKF could probably be placed for deletion since it was mentioned at the AfD for TnKs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google Books didn't turn up anything relevant, nor can I find any reviews that aren't from lowly site users. Tezero (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Digging around in Japanese pulls more or less nothing as well, I'm afraid. Pity ja.wiki is so lax about sources. --erachima talk 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It might have helped if it got picked up by an English publisher like Crunchyroll. How is it ranking on Oricon? That might be enough to justify keeping it around if it's making the top 10-30 in volumes? -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We need another way to deal with articles like these. From what I've seen every time an article which shouldnt have been created gets AfD for obvious reasons, the community ends up sympathizing with the page. —KirtZ^Message 02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "the community." Because even there, the reasoning-based arguments from project members are leaning delete. I think AfD participation is just down and it makes the variance in outcomes higher. --erachima talk 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. —KirtZ^Message 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(Please take this rant with a grain of salt). The problem isn't the arguments, but as KirtZ mentioned, it's the community. No matter how many reasonable arguments there tend to be in these debates, they are far-overshadowed by weak (if not down right ridiculous) "arguments" that do nothing to justify notability. And even though our arguments on Wikipedia are supposed to be weighted based on their arguments, in my experience, AFDs always end up being decided by the votes, and it doesn't seem like the closing admins even care to read the arguments for a debate longer than 1KB. Does a relatively arbitrary mention in 2 reliable sources constitute the significant coverage stipulated at WP:GNG? Some say yes, and others say no, and that's really the core of the debate. Besides, even if there are an equal number of keep and delete votes, it just ends up as no consensus and we're back to square one, so the AFD debates always favor keeping the article, making it increasingly difficult to make sure that only notable topics get articles. This is why this WikiProject's reputation is so bad compared to other projects. We can't agree on anything, even on a fundamental issue like what topics are and are not notable. But whatever, I'm just venting, since I've pretty much just given up on it. The way things are going, every manga that's ever been published and ever mentioned once in a reliable source is going to get an article, and there is nothing you or anyone can say to prevent it.--十八 03:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"This is why this WikiProject's reputation is so bad compared to other projects."

Actually I think that's the fault of the often-exorbitant coverage of in-universe minutia and the years-long arguments over content forking. People writing (non-COI) articles about books that exist but just don't matter are a pretty irrelevant problem. --erachima talk 03:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What I was alluding to was the following sentence: "We can't agree on anything". And the AFD debates are a prime example of that, including of course the years-long arguments on various things. I swear, this is probably the largest project in terms of article number that can't get along on a fundamental level, even when it comes to something as simple as formatting, which btw, we just had a pretty nice edit war with at Puella Magi Madoka Magica not 10 minutes ago.--十八 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there an Wikipedia:Articles for creation process with a tag to involve this project? Shouldn't newly created series go through that first? I've been assessing importance on some articles based on whether the notability has been documented properly in the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

PreCure or Precure?

Regarding the Pretty Cure franchise, most of the articles that use the shorthand form "Precure" (eg. everything following HeartCatch) stylize it as "PreCure" (with a capital C) based on its portmanteau origins. However, most of the actual Japanese media, namely the ending sequences for Dokidoki! PreCure, HappinessCharge PreCure! and the New Stage movies, write it as "Precure" without the capitalized C. Would it be better to use that for the universal spelling of Precure as opposed to PreCure? I brought it up on the talk page but it seems to have gone ignored. On a related note, should Yes! PreCure 5 be titled Yes! Pretty Cure 5, since it comes before Toei started using the shorthand name for its series? The only notable argument I've seen against it is that, unlike the other series, the logos for Yes! and GoGo! don't feature an English spelling of プリキュア (which is "Pretty Cure" for Futari wa, Splash Star, and Fresh, and "Precure" for Heartcatch onwards). Wonchop (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It is as far as I know impossible to make Google check for CamelCase variance for the sake of determining what the more common usage is. The only official English version expanded it out to "Pretty Cure" which is also unhelpful. So, in short, no clue. --erachima talk 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey what coverage there is on ANN, Mania, and other know English-language reliable sources and see how they spell it. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well here's some examples of ending sequences that use the "Precure" spelling at least: DokiDoki ED1 DokiDoki ED2 (note how these also say "DokiDoki!" as opposed to the currently used "Dokidoki!") New Stage 2 ED. It is admittedly hard to find official sources since only the first series has had any official English release. Wonchop (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But what really matters in naming is how English-language source refer to it and whether English-language sources use camelcase or not. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on Futari wa's entry on ANN is concerned, ANN are using "Precure" for pretty much all the series, with the odd exception of HappinessCharge being spelt with "PreCure". Wonchop (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The encyclopedia entries are irrelevant. What is relevant is how the series is referred to in the news coverage. Also, what about other sources? What name do they use? —Farix (t | c) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're probably overestimating how many reliable English news sites are willing to report on a Japanese anime for little girls. Siliconera's reports on the games vary in spelling too, using "Precure" for some and "PreCure" for others (one article seems to use both), so like ANN, that seems to be more down to what the editor chooses to put down. Wonchop (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, most English sources seem to spell it either way, since the names are generally presented in either katakana or all caps, but the anime ending sequences do show us how Toei intends for it to be spelled in normal text. Wonchop (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it changes per series. Sometimes it's "PreCure" and sometimes it's "Pretty Cure". What we know is that the "Futari wa..." line were all "Pretty Cure" as was Fresh, and everything that follows "Fresh" is "PreCure", while "Yes...5" is ambiguous because there's no English in its logostyle (other than "Yes").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The issue concerning Yes is if it should be Pretty Cure to match with all other pre-HeartCatch series using that format, or just Precure since there's nothing else to go on (not neccessarily counting the English logo Toei made for pitching purposes, since they also did a Pretty Cure one for HeartCatch.) Any thoughts on the "C" vs "c" debate? Wonchop (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can use whatever phrase best goes with the individual series like HappinessCharge PreCure!. When mentioning the franchise, group or characters use Pretty Cure. When referring to that specific series as an abbreviation you can use the spelling best associated with that season, or ignore it by using the HappinessCharge part of the short title. If cornered to make a choice, add "sometimes stylized as HappinessCharge Precure!" in the lead so you have both cases covered. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a little tricky considering the desired spelling could extend to the whole franchise. But I guess what you're suggesting for now is to tackle these naming on a case-by-case basis based on canon English spelling, rather than tackling the whole franchise at once? For example, since DokiDoki is the only main TV series showing the title written in standard English during its ending sequences, we could change Dokidoki! PreCure to DokiDoki! Precure accordingly, but only that article for now, with a note on the franchise article that both "PreCure" and "Precure" are used as valid spellings for the series. There is the fact 'Precure' on its own does get used for the ending sequences of some of the All-Stars movies, but one thing at a time I suppose. I guess someone who knows what Japanese Twitters to poke around could also ask the official Toei channels whether or not it is meant to be spelt as PreCure or Precure, but personally I wouldn't know where to start. Wonchop (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actor vs. Voice actor vs. Voice actor, actor in infobox occupation

In going through the VA pages, I've noticed some of the articles have prioritized the voice actor's non-anime careers, putting stuff like their live-action television and movie roles up front. I know the VAs want to be known for more than just the voice acting, but when most of their notable work is voice acting, it's hard to list something else as a primary occupation. While listing "Actor" works for those who started in live-action like Johnny Yong Bosch or have become much more notable in live-action like Leigh-Allyn Baker, it doesn't quite work for Jessica Boone whose theatre experience, while nice to know she's worked in lots of productions and organizations, yet are not Wikipedia-level notable. Tara Platt's page prioritizes her live-action roles, calling her an actress, but most of those roles are minor/guest characters, none of which show in the lead paragraph. Kari Wahlgren has one starring movie and two appearances in a TV series, so now she's a full on actress amidst hundreds of VA roles?

So what should the occupation be?

• Voice actress, actress
• Actress
• Voice actress
• Actress, voice artist (as with Nancy Cartwright's page)

And on the Japanese side, a lot of seiyuu have a "singer" designation, although they don't show any albums or hit singles. Perhaps their character album makes it onto Oricon? Also if they are on a radio drama CD, are they a "radio personality"? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement about what's their job and what's resume padding, describe them as reliable secondary sources do. --erachima talk 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I found one just now for Kari so am using that. :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

There is an AN discussion which may interest this project, as it discusses one of its important contributors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black has now been indef topic-banned from all Japanese entertainment broadly construed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much a complete site ban as Lucia only works in that subject area. Of course, there were several individual attempting a witch-hunt for her for several months on the AN boards. —Farix (t | c) 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly I agree, might as well ban Lucia altogether. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A closure review is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)