Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

List of Lupin III characters

Is this list necessary? Discussion here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In short, this is already on my list. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of sources

I've recently had a look at several Mecha anime articles and the common theme in several of these articles seems to be a lot of highly detailed information and absolutely no sources for any of it. Others contain a couple of references but everything else is uncited. Examples include: Super Robot, The Big O and Aura Battler Dunbine amongst many others. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The BIg O is under my list, and trust me, the mecha (Megadeus) does not need its own section, mainly because the majority of the mecha are 1-episode only with the exception of The Big O and Big Fau. but its not really important to have them separate from the main characters. What we could do is look into magazines and see what they cover. Animefringe is an online discontinued magazine thats easy to access such as Animerica, but others i believe need to be found through archives or manually looking for the magazines through ebay such Anime Insider. And of course hope that online review sites made reviews for these older anime.Lucia Black (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a problem with most anime/manga articles rather than just mecha. That said the fan cruft in mecha is ridiculous. I do have some articles on mecha series and will probably acquire more over time but it's not something I am prepared to get involved with myself. I can probably provide necessary scans but I will only do so if the work is being done as part of a proper overhaul of articles, so if possible prioritise the series/specific elements needing it and then it's easier to request sources and assistance. Big O certainly has been covered in several magazines. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Space Pirate Captain Harlock

I was thinking we could work on this particular title, there are several articles for this series and hardly any of them are sourced. I was thinking if we could condense and merge some of them so it could be easier to look for information on every entry. Its a pretty old series too but if anyone can find any information on it, that would be great.Lucia Black (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already looked to it, and had the same concern. However, this requires people who like/watched/read the series, or at least someone cheerful... Something really difficult over here. Do you have any idea right now? I think it's ideal to at least idealize how the main article would be. None of the series can be a standalone article? Would it be more like Lupin III (which is the main page for several derivatives that has its own articles) or School Rumble (that englobes all the series' media)? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think taking on Lupin III approach is best. Although, i think maybe we should keep all episode lists in a single list article.Lucia Black (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

perhaps a sandbox for such a project would be acceptable so that we don't have to worry too much about making mistakes or forgetting to add in certain information.Lucia Black (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a sanbox is certainly a good idea. Currently, episode lists are easy to do since the network/productor lists all episodes on its site. However, series of this period usually do not (I know from personal experience); I checked Toei, but there is only the first and the last airdate. Other versions of Wikipedia are not RS, but the Japanese Wikipedia always have episodes' information (I couldn't do this one without the Japanese Wikipedia's help). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have offline sources? It would be very helpful. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember i had an issue of Otaku USA reviewing it, but I think I lost it. Sucha shame, I was sure it was a 2-page spread. I'm sure Ill find another magazine, animerica seems to be the likely choice.Lucia Black (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of franchise where there are stacks of sources once you start looking but being an old show you really need mags or books that offer an in-depth historical insight. It's just a case of identifying which exact issues need to be acquired. I know I can contribute to this in some form. Plus being a large well known old school franchise, I'm actually eager to help even though I have plenty of work to do myself.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if you find anything, you're welcome to add it in. any help would be great.Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I made a sandbox for this so it could be easier for us. I haven't done much to it, all i did was add the layout. Here it is User:Lucia Black/Space Pirate Captain Harlock. Everyone is welcomed to add anything. And we can discuss anything specific to the page there.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Images

I've been wondering for a couple years why there is no uniformity to the images used for infoboxes. I'm talking specifically for manga, since most anime are adapted from manga. Some articles use a series' tankobon volume 1, while others like One Piece, which was updated a couple years ago, use more recent covers and then random others use an English cover. I propose to have a preference added to the project to use volume 1 of the Japanese edition similar to how Wikipedia:WikiProject Books encourages to "try to select the cover of the book's first edition." For manga, I believe first editions are most like the Japanese tankobon volume 1 covers. Xfansd (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the cover of the first volumes is always the best choice. For Terpsichora, for example, I wasn't able to find a good image of the first volume (it was too smaller and was in a poor quality). I time ago, I DragonZero tolde me there was "no rule that states we should use volume 1", and choose the cover because it showed the main character... Well, I agree we should privilege better-looking images or images that shows parts of the series, like characters, for example... But, well, I know which is "better-looking" is subjective... I like the idea of uniformity, but I see no real reason to use only the volume of 1 of the Japanese edition. Of course, just my (messy) opinion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The change for One piece was probably due to to better reflect the large cast of characters. Plus that particular volume title seems to play some factor to the original first volume as both were titled "romancing dawn" and they bare close resemblance.

However i don't believe we should pick any "random" volume number, and if theres no real reason to change the image then we stick with the first volume. Another example of this is School Rumble but that was again to better illustrate the series.Lucia Black (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant Gabriel, I should have pointed that out. I'm not saying we should always use the vol 1, just to have it as the preferred image. I too have run into the occasional problem of not being able to find a decent quality image of volume 1, and in such a case of course we should use a different volume than have a crappy image in the infobox.

It seems there was already a mutual understanding amongst everyone to use vol 1 if available, I was just trying to have it added in writing maybe at MOS:AM. The volume number aside, the major aspect I wanted to address was using Japanese over English as it is the first published/original language (again, "first edition"). I have seen some editors change an image from the original Japanese to the English release of the exact same volume. I apologize for singling out a specific instance, but when an editor changed the Japanese volume 1 that was used at Detective Conan/Case Closed to vol 36 of the English release I was quite startled. The content of both is essentially exactly the same; they both only have the main character on them, there is no change in art style, and the volume 1 was of sufficient quality. So I can not see any reason for that change. Xfansd (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be a case by case basis for the same reasons stated above an image might be more easily available in English but not so in Japanese, this is also the English encyclopedia so I do not feel as startled seeing them in the infobox. Edit warring over an infobox image though is like the argument about colors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with putting it in MOS:AM is that some are going to take the "preference" as an absolute rule and remove/replace any image that doesn't match the "preference". Most of the people who upload images to illustrate the covers of anime or manga generally pick the fist volume cover. However, if there is already a cover image, you should not be going around changing it without good cause, even if the image doesn't match the "preference". And trying to codify it is entirely unnecessary instruction creep. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't change it. But if we do, it will need consensus. But we shouldn't challenge the reasoning behind it just so people can get the cover they personally want. We usually do it to gain order, if theres no valid reason to have that specific random volume, then we go with the preference of the MOS over the preference of one editor.Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The first volume to a decent length series is usually the worst to represent it, so using different volumes passes NFCC 8 better. The main character doesn't even appear on the cover until the 24th volume for A Town Where You Live. As for the Case Closed deal, it was to reduce non free content. The image was first used at With a Bang (Case Closed) and is currently shared with the main article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This being the English wiki is irrelevant. Even generally speaking, it is more desirable to have an image of the original "anything" than a reproduction, is it not? Particularly with books, which manga are, there is a preference to the original published/first edition regardless of language, hence why WikiProject books has that listed. There is no edit war, I started this discussion without reverting anything. I don't agree with your relation to "colors" either, this is not cosmetic, the infobox image represents the very subject of the article.

Again, I'm not suggesting an absolute use Japanese volume one. I'm agreeing there are instances to use other volumes, School Rumble is the perfect example. Simply having a preference listed doesn't impede future changes at all. The Japanese Detective Conan volume 1 was used in the main infobox, at List of Case Closed volumes, and at List of Case Closed volumes (1–20). It provided visual representation to three articles and the simple fact that it was the first volume made it a much better image, especially since its replacement added nothing. Xfansd (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We are using the manga volumes to represent the series, not a book like Harry Potter, so the first version suggestion should not apply here. I'm the one managing Case Closed, and removed those images from the list for NFCC reasons. The first volume and the current image are equivalent in value, with the latter satisfying NFCC better. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i'm sure DragonZero is only saying that we should make a rule for long running series to allow more exceptions. Although not all series are meant to portray the main character on the cover, a lot of times the main character might not appear or rather they show a different main character.Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Gantz chapters

Anyone to join this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e Peer Review

I've put the ukiyo-e article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate sometime this year. I'd appreciate any and all feedback—but especially on the choice and placement of images, and on my admittedly poor description of ukiyo-e's relation to traditional Japanese aesthetics. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ukiyo-e/archive1‎. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for additional eyes at Kantai Collection

May I request a few extra eyes watching Kantai Collection? This article is about a media franchise which spans games, manga, anime, and doujinshi. I've seen multiple occasions within the past month of IP editors from Japan blanking all negative criticism from the "reception" section and only permitting positive information regarding the game. Thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura peer review

I put the article up at peer review in efforts to get it to Featured status. Everyone is welcome to help. here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cardcaptor_Sakura/archive1.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Kill la Kill episodes

We may need more eyes over at List of Kill la Kill episodes. An IP has twice inserted information that the series was pulled off the air after episode 19, but has yet to provide a source backing up the claim. The only "source" that was presented was a page on the official site listing the broadcast times and networks. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This video does seem to suggest that, but MBS still has it on their schedule.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Episode 20 was still listed on BS-TBS schedule as well a moment ago.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Episode 20 is also scheduled for two days from now so I see no issue in waiting until then to see if the episode aired or not (unless there is solid proof of it not airing beforehand). I am sure someone will report on this if it does happen.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"I am sure someone will report on this if it does happen." That is exactly the thing. If an anime TV series was being being pulled off the air, it would have been reported by sites like ANN. In fact, when I first saw this added to the episode list, ANN was the first place I checked. But there was nothing. Rewatching the preview at the end of episode 19 on Crunchyroll makes it clear that it is only the previews that are moving to web only. The reasons for that could be numerous, but mostly likely related to free up more time for episode content. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It would have been reported by Japanese sources long before ANN though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, episode 20 aired as scheduled on the BS-TBS channel (looked like time may have been freed up for more DVD and merchandise advertisements).edited Verso.Sciolto (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If that can be sourced and the info has yet to be added it would be a good idea to mention that the network has started to air edited versions of the show.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in references

What is everyone's thoughts of the use of quotes inside of a reference? This should not be confused with quotes in the article text, but inside the reference itself. For example, this reference taken from Hideko Mizuno: Toku, Masami (2004). "The Power of Girls' Comics: The Value and Contribution to Visual Culture and Society". Girl's manga were first depicted by female mangaka in the 1950s. Watanabe, Maki, and Mizuno are the most successful girl's mangaka who visualized girls' dreams and desires in their graphic novels.

Personally, I think such quotations inside references should be avoided. It don't really add anything to the reference except to make it longer. And for pages where there are a large number of references, it is just clutter. On top of that, there is also the potential that the quote is being taken out of context by those pushing a particular POV or engaging in original research. And finally, I really can't think of a scenario where if the quote is really needed, the quote can't be inserted into the article directly. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LONGQUOTE, longer quotes can be footnoted. But if the article has the direct quote, the footnote shouldn't have the exact same quote. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it me or is the quote not strictly supporting the text it's being used with? Seems a bit of a casual interpretation. Same goes for the Manga! Manga! citation, none of the pages that mention her support the part of the statement it's attached to (i.e. the part about the significance of it's a male lead.Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying she is the most successful in the lead sentence isn't right though. It would be more useful if the context was added in a later line or reception, like: Masami Toku listed her as one of the most successful mangakas from the 1950s. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You guys are missing the forest for the tree. The quotes aren't necessary when the information is being cited directly. This isn't where a long quote is being "footnoted", which should be in another section anyways, but being used to support a statement in the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The refs are meant to verify the source. Quotes aren't needed. Lucia Black (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DragonZero's edits to Rozen Maiden

Lucia wants to discuss about my edits at Talk:Rozen Maiden#Format issue. Here is my version 1. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keynote, this is an edit that goes against the standard format, so whatever consensus reaches here, has to be discussed afterward for more MOS-related discussion. Lucia Black (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally after skimming the article and the diff of DZ's edit, I really don't think it matters which one of them is used. Or rather, I see no reason why DZ's edit would damage the article. In terms of structure difference is fairly minor and seems to be pretty inconsequential as far as breaking it goes, certainly not worth edit warring over. I really don't think it should automatically affect other articles under the WP:Anime umbrella as Lucia suggests. Setting aside that MOS:AM has it's own issues anyway, this really shouldn't make any difference because it's not really that far removed from it. Once you get to a situation where the article is heading to or at GA you have to start looking at things like this on a case by case basis anyway.Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the article puts the format to the original media at center stage, usually for anime that works fine because their manga adaptations aren't as notable, however, this has been brought up in the past in another peer review where DragonZero has said the structure affects featured-status. Which i'm not so inclined to believe, i really do believe we need to put a rest to it. If the MOS has issues, now is the time to get it fixed or bring up the issue.

Keep in mind the anime has as much coverage as the manga, and standard anime/manga media have them coincide regardless of which is the original/adaptation. I think its very very important. Lucia Black (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DZ's edits don't change that. Primary work (manga), then adaptations, then other media. Adaptions can be considered other media (again, case by case), but the structure hasn't changed here beyond a different heading. DZ's edits aren't so major as to warrant the reaction. Actually I'm finding the fuss to be rather overblown because it's not even a content issue. I don't have a preference between the two versions, but there isn't a reason to not use DZ's edit. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the way the format is changes everything. And it also makes the article inconsistent. Rozen Maiden isn't just a manga series and the rest are just "related media" it is all media. THink about the focus it brings, and yes, format does exactly that. Lucia Black (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

For example: The anime has its own reception and atually overshadows the manga, also note that anime and manga coincide in Japanese media in some shape or form. Lucia Black (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Dandy, my edits don't change the weight of each subject but highlights the main work and its derivative adaptions; an improvement of accessibility. It is based off of several structures from projects outside A/M, and is something I've been using since Holmes no Mokushiroku, an article that also generated back clash from the project. At this rate, this will become another Ghost in the Shell discussion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're changing the highlight of it, you're changing the weight. Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The content is still there. The original being highlighted is a norm, like Shakespeare's plays, The X-Files, The Simpsons. My structure is like those, except the reception section are shared as if the imaginary article has been merged. There is no reason the old structure is better. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Shakespear is famous for its plays, the original media. same with The X-Files, and the Simpsons. Throughout the entire franchise of those, its clear which is the original. HOWEVER anime and manga media don't always work the same way as western media, Manga and anime are the two most prominent media in japan that go together coherently for every franchise. The information is "down-played" with the new setup, and i know you understand what i'm saying when i'm saying this and you know there's no point telling me the same information is there, i know that but i also know when one is highlighted less.

The way we had it setup highlighted the relationship of how Japanese media works. Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They are still adaptions of an original work which is why the structure should be normalized, no matter how much the two keep promoting each other. The new structure would also work much better for Code Geass. This is going to go to RFC at this rate. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally unless a fourth party cares to comment on this and taking into account that the page hasn't suffered from a quality issue as a result of the changes, I'd have to side with DZ as the primary editor of the page over the last 6 months or so and has every right to dictate the direction of the article. While I appreciate Lucia's opinion, I don't see any need to reject DZ's changes. I particularly reject Lucia's assertion that anime and manga have to go together coherently for every franchise, if anything most franchises diverge significantly between the anime and manga versions and can easily be considered different things altogether that just share some elements (the reason we don't have separate articles for some titles even with good sourcing is generally because it's easier to make one good article than two or more bad ones). Sometimes this is actually forced by either the original author or the ongoing plot line conflicting with anime production schedules. In any case, I'm restoring DZ's changes. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

While I have no serious issues with DZ's formatting, I do not believe DZ has "every right to dictate the direction of the article" no matter how much involvement they have had in the article, as that would be ownership. As DZ suggested, taking it to RFC may be the next logical course of action.--十八 10:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe he implied I'd know what direction to edit the article in, since I edited the article from scratch. Aside from that, I've taken Dandy as the 3O opinion for the article and removed my request from that board. It seems that my structure has received an OK for Rozen Maiden. As of right now, it seems as if only Lucia actively disagrees with the structure, unless you want to voice an opinion Juhachi? If there is enough division of ideas, it really will have to go to RFC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

yes, that's more what I meant. The perils of writing quickly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I too see no issue with DZ's changes. I also strongly disagree with the assertion that what we decide for this article has repercussions for the entire WikiProject. We had an RfC on Manga-vs.-Anime issues quite recently, and its result was to decide matters on a case-by-case basis. There simply is no need to have all articles conform to the same mold. Huon (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: the mold is good if its small changes, but also if it makes sense and there is enough reason for it. Rozen Maiden covers just as much (if not more) anime than the manga, the only way i can agree to such a change in the format is if the anime got its own article, which it really can't, it would need to have 2 different anime articles because their not all related to each other.

THis is why i have a huge problem with just changing it, really analyze the article's information and why that mold fits best. Is there anything "wrong" with the old one? Lucia Black (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My main view on the issue is that DZ's edits are not detrimental to the article, and are in line with other formats used in other parts of Wikipedia, namely WP:BOOK and WP:VG by keeping the primary media generally separate from any related media and/or adaptations. However, I don't particularly find anything wrong with the old format (Lucia's version), especially when there is very little written about the primary media. Take Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions#Media as a recent example. There is so little written about the light novels that splitting them into their own section makes little sense, but for Rozen Maiden, since the manga info has some substantial content, and a separate chapter list to boot, I don't see a problem giving it its own release section. So case-by-case is how I think this issue should be resolved going forward.--十八 12:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Juhachi: That can be said about the anime aswell, it also has its own episode list. So would we make a release sub-section for the anime section? a 4-tier heading? Rozen Maiden is a much more difficult one as it has roughly 2 animes depending on how u count the seasons and TV specials, and will dominate the article. The old format does work well on most occasion, mainly because information on the primary media usually is up to par with the adaptation. Lucia Black (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be said about the anime, as you suggest, because the manga is the primary topic of the article, so it is not inconceivable that the manga release info would get its own section to differentiate it from its various adaptations/related media.--十八 12:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But its not for Rozen Maiden's case as it doesn't have as much information as the anime(s). Keep in mind, i'm mainly countering the fact that it has a chapter list article to go infavor of a release section since thats the only other piece of information the manga has. Or why not put the anime release alongside the manga? see even if it doesn't work out that way, levels of inconsistency are there as the reception doesn't divide manga or anime, but the entire article does. Lucia Black (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that original media doesn't work the same way in the west as it does in Japan, the adaptation usually plays homage to the original in a very close way. Although Rozen Maiden doesn't do that really good and can be considered the exception, both medias are still in a sense "side-by-side" as media adaptations are going concurrently with the original. This is possible reason as why bigger series such as Naruto and One Piece also don't split anime and manga apart despite distinguishing which is the original media. Lucia Black (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why this affects other articles

This and [1] already suggests Dandy Sephy's main argument is that DragonZero is merely acting in good faith and that he is the primary editor for the article, but you don't really need to be the primary editor for the article in order to make such a decision such as format because this is a format that is also based on MOS and several other articles that are also GA and FA (some of which DragonZero himself has used). Still, Dandy Sephy's vote is still based on the voter, not on the action. Which is still ties in with WP:OWN.

This didn't start with Rozen Maiden: But this is an issue for me at a broader scale than just one article, and we shouldn't downplay this at all. These are two different formats and we just "happen" to be using one over the other for no apparent reason. This is about the format of ALL articles in general. DragonZero knows this which is why i asked we discuss here in this wikiproject to use the weight of all ANIME articles and their standards, but this is treated as "DragonZero's edit vs My opinion" which isn't the case. DragonZero recently said in peer review of Cardcaptor Sakura that the current format we are broadly using will hinder FA status, which none of the articles have lost its FA status due to this format (School Rumble is a prime example of using this format). So its clear there is a form of agenda of changing the format at a larger scale outside of just Rozen Maiden (and even then nothing suggest Rozen Maiden needed to change its format) or probably only to articles DragonZero has made significant contribution, and not that he shouldn't make his own edits, but there has to be consistency. And if one editor is claiming that this affects possible featured-status on an article, then this "has" to be addressed in some shape or form.

Possible Solution/Compromise: The only way i can possibly accept this format is if the media that has significant coverage gets its own article. So Rozen Maiden (anime) would be split off. But that's most likely not going to happen as there are 2 anime series that aren't all connected to each other. But then again no one was unified in Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) either. So that needs to be addressed, even if not by me.

With that being said: If the manga and anime article School Rumbles decides to split off into its own anime article, (2 seasons, 2 OVAs), i can most definitely get behind on the format that DragonZero is pushing, because now the focus on "anime" is in its own article and is fitting to be in a section called "Related Media" rather than "Media" in general because the primary focus of the article is completely Manga-centric. And honestly there is enough information on the anime to get its own article and possible even extend this to 2 featured article status.

But it doesn't work well with Rozen Maiden, because the information is nearly dominated by the anime.

Finishing thoughts @Dandy Sephy: if you're voting merely for the sake that DragonZero knowledge of one specific series, then you have to understand this change is a fundamental one, and we will have to update our MOS, and we will have to change all the articles that fit this particular setup. And me, i have no problem doing that if that's the consensus, but right now WP:ANIME is more divided than it is shown and unless we don't get unified we will continue to have these issues and this wont be a community that share the same goals, it will be factions of gangs

Keep in mind, Rozen Maiden really doesn't bring out much to even "need" this format, but it also does it in a way that hinders the representation of information. And remember the Anime adaptation split debate? Well guess what? that actually did solve situations. It ended campaigns to make excessive splits of several articles relating to anime-adaptations. And we also established where the line is between the case by case. So its not like it went nowhere, it actually established something to help unify the wikiproject. Lucia Black (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read most of that, but it looks like you're hung up on that peer review. Those were my opinions. You were not obliged to listen to them. Since FA reviewers are people who don't know about anime and manga, I suggested adopting the "dubbed my structure" which are used in other projects (books, VG, theatrics, etc etc). And did you just suggest I had some secret agenda changing Rozen Maiden? It was something I've planned for a while, I was just too busy to put it in. Pushing for consistency won't always work. I tried the same for the producer parameter in the infobox which resulted in no consensus. This is my last reply for the night. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The words "secret" did not come up, and even if so, the WP:ANIME still has to address it if you are claiming it. Still, it would be respectful of you if you at least read the compromise section. Lucia Black (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my "vote" here. I've offered a third opinion from a neutral point of view, and as stated I have no immediate preference but saw no reason to refuse DZ's edits. (suggesting DZ is the primary editor and well judged to steer the course of the article is not an ownership issue but an opinion, especially as he put it to the project at large for comment). I think it's worth noting that if the article was to be considered for pushing to FA, these sorts of changes would have to be made anyway, regardless of what the MOS may or may not say. I would also say that we don't have enough editors to decide on formal changes to the MOS anyway, it's hard enough finding people just to edit articles properly, never mind turning things on their head. This is all time and effort we could spend on actual articles. MOS:AM is important for putting together a structure, but it's not absolute, some articles need more, some might need less. Now frankly this is the last I'm contributing to the discussion in it's current form because it's clearly not going to get anywhere. I offered an opinion to try and settle the discussion, but instead it's been blown into a bigger argument I was not prepared to get into and one I refuse to be drawn into. Lucia, you can either accept the views of myself and Juhachi or wait to see if anyone else agrees with you. Or you can start a separate discussion about the MOS and take individual articles out of the equation. Either way you should have a real think about it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't stand strong on a concept that goes both ways. I simply disagree with it, in more ways then any of you can imagine, while you're only "not against" it by simply saying "I personally don't see anything wrong with the edit" but again, this is still while saying "i don't see anything wrong with going back to the other form". So again, playing a double-edge sword. So its not like i'm saying i'm against your views, its just your views aren't solid enough to make a vote as it applies to both ways. Juhachi has also made comments onto why the old format (my edit) is beneficial.

Now, as much as we like to say "this could be time editing articles", i rather not get into another standstill while editing, and i prefer we have an MOS that people can agree with. So right now, you're saying these changes are also necessary for the sake of FA. the current MOS allows room for exceptions, but when needed. Here however there really isn't a strong case. Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a huge deal, Tokyo Mew Mew a FA class article is not laid out this way, I feel whatever works is fine here the article is of GA status so why should there be a formal format when these two layouts have worked okay? One should not have to replace the other more of a side by side thing should take place - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

THis is an idea that either has to eradicated or enforced. but we really need to address it. Lucia Black (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well we have two ways now that gets articles to GA class, that to me is pretty good and do not see we should choose one over the other. As it is our franchise articles are treated differently so maybe this could be a case by case basis and place a subpage in our MOS about different ways the two layouts could apply? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly is this "an idea that either has to [be] eradicated or enforced"? I see no need to do either, and going by the replies that can mostly be summarized as "meh", neither do quite a few other editors. Huon (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: the idea of changing the format merely because it believes it affects GA, two editors have voiced that they do believe it does, two others don't. As for Knowledgekid i also believe there is a case by case scenario although not for "releases" Lucia Black (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused than before. DragonZero certainly suggested reasons other than GA status for his change, and while I don't have a strong opinion, I tend to agree with him. Knowledgekid87 seems to be saying quite the contrary, that there is no need to choose a particular format for its supposed GA effects because it's possible to achieve GA status both ways. Who exactly has proposed changing the format merely for its effects on GA status? And if no one has put forward that idea, why should we have to deal with it? Huon (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm referring to FA (not GA), in which peer review of FA he stated it, now Dandy Sephy is agreeing with him, Knowleddgekid and i are not. Knowledgekid particularly said that if the format is acceptable for GA, it should not hinder FA status if the time comes. Still, my reasoning has to do with all the smaller issues that lead to the one big main issue, misleading format. Lucia Black (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve? No one objected to the structure and it is not misleading. Do you want an RFC to determine which structure should dominate A/M or what? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the setup you hve is acceptable, however not universally acceptable and not just an "option". if you look at the compromise, using the format you want to use is better off if notable related media is in its own article. Lucia Black (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ninhongo foot and Ryulong

The editor has put the nihongo foot template. Now he's claiming it goes against the MOS (specifically MOS-JA, which is a bit of stretch considering it doesn't really say it can't be done that way, and even so its not like the MOS can be updated.

What i find this disruptive is the fact how misleading his edits are, by labeling this as "minor" and not even being clear onto what exactly he's doing. He claims Javascript marks it as minor when he's replacing text, but he's not replacing it, he's removing it. And even then, its not exactly clear because the description says JS: Replacing "hongo foot" with "hongo". JS: Replacing "|group=Jp" with "". And of course, refusing to inform respected wikiprojects that use this template. Lucia Black (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. No manual of style suggests "selectively put non-English text that you think clutters up the article into a footnotes section". And three edits, two of which used automatic edit summaries and are automatically marked as minor, is not "disruption". Get off your high horse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you refused to inform wikiprojects about this speaks volumes. Theres no high horse here. Lucia Black (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not required to do anything you claim I should have done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to play dumb for you. So you know where the rules are. You choose to follow them, thats your business, but you know why we're here. the link to the TfD for NIhongo foot is here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 9 Lucia Black (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You could have just posted the TFD link instead of accusing me of disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

doesn't change the fact that you were. Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

From the TFD, It is neither barred or encouraged, but helps reduce the clutter caused by successive Japanese text. I see this as the next step A/M articles should take to be more accessible. Why do you get to decide it should not be used? It's similar to stopping me from trying new episode list formats because it deviates from the norm. If consensus can be achieved that Nihongfoot is OK here, I believe it would be viable for your nihongfoot removal to be reverted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in use on less than 50 articles and it was only put on the anime and manga ones by Lucia Black one month ago. If you are introducing a foreign term or proper noun like this the Japanese text should be included. If things are as cluttered up as you and Lucia Black say they are, then maybe the articles need to be formatted in a way that makes things easier to read. The implimentation of this template is just god awful. The way the information is presented makes no sense. You just have a bunch of columns at the end of the article that just have what is "cluttering up" the page without any context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine them as notes. What makes you have complete authority to remove nihongo foot from articles, if editors think it is useful? What's going to convince you to allow usage of Nihongo Foot? RFC? ANI? And then, you are complaining the character are cluttering the article, even though their fancruft was removed and merged into the article? Did you even look at the content you removed from the article, before restoring the fancruft and outdated list? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

They're "notes" that are malformatted. And I've made a TFD. And the list is much too big for the main article. Just cut the crap out of the character list if it's such an issue. They cannot be merged as you made them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the result was the character list on the page which you decided to just outright delete. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Then I'll work on copying and pasting stuff from the old version into the separate page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Charisma Doll up for deletion

Any input would be helpful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think merging it to her bio page is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not much to merge a redirect would be best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Spring 2014 Team project

I'm not completely convinced this will work but I guess this is your chance to prove me wrong :p

I think we should take a crack at a team project, something we can work on collectively even if it means we actually edit individual articles on an individual basis. I would suggest that we either tackled a cleanup project of some form (expanding stubs, BLP work, finding sources for articles that suggest notability but don't yet show it) or work on pages key to the projects theme.

Any thoughts or suggestions welcome, as well as anyone willing to dedicate an amount of time. This is an interest check as much as anything, I would suggest we work towards starting officially from April 1st and using the meantime to tackle the details. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a great idea. I would be interested to help. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinking a little more, I think it would be best to start simply with something that can be done without particular knowledge of a subject and that doesn't involve any complex operations, decisions or potential "enthusiastic disagreements". Then we can measure the success of the project based on completion of a set list to work from, with any contributing members marking off the pages as they are done, or leaving notes for others. So I'd like to narrow it down to working through a list of articles that require sourcing for reception, because everyone should be able to at the least search ANN and Mania.com, books.google.com etc and optionally use books like Anime Ency and Manga:Complete Guide. I can create a work page with a list of articles that need the work if there is support for the idea. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea..however...so i suggest we do this..we list the most popular C-stub class articles and bumb them up to B-class. obviously the C class might take more priority as their closer to B-class. But start and stub might also be one. So we continue to bump these more popular down to the least. Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just so we have a place to start and readers get the most benefit out of it rather than starting somewhere and readers dont see this progress. Also, i would like to be part of this. Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Improving stubs/C class was one of my early thoughts but a few things caused me to veer away from the idea. For starters it requires a more concentrated dedication of time and effort in both research and writing. With a number of us already involved in reworking specific articles to get them either to GA or headed in the right direction, it's a big ask. Another thing would be the correlation of popularity and the ability to improve the page significantly. Besides that many of the most popular pages are series that happen to have just aired/airing now that may not necessarily have enough information for B, it generally needs someone who knows the subject well to pull together a B class article and I would imagine the most active members of the project already do this with subjects they have a interest in.

On the other hand the argument for adding reception to articles that currently lack demonstrations of notability is that it can be done by anyone and can be done when someone has a spare 5 minutes without the need for knowledge of a series beyond the words on the screen and basic research skills using the usual sources. Plus it reduces the size of probably the worse clean up category going. In particular I would work through the articles that have had a english language release first as thats where we are most likely to find coverage. I do want to see an increase in articles at B class, partly because of the general advantage to the project and partly because they may be outnumbered by GA articles (!) within a few months. However it's a substantial increase in demands of editors and it seems more something to do once we've done a trial run as it were. That said, if the majority would prefer to tackle a selection of expansion work, I'm not going to argue if they are sure they can spare the time from their own projects. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt in my mind that most of our articles are about series that aren't notable. But i believe it would be easier for us to look at a small group of articles at a time. if its a group effort, we can be able to do the most we can. And if we can't find information on it, we ask for additional help. I suggested the most popular manga/anime articles (the one with the most views) Because those are usually the ones that might be notable. Once we narrow it down to more obscure series, we will be able to find out which ones aren't notable and possibly AfD them. Lucia Black (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The top 100 most important anime should be our focus, this represents the majority of our views and a tiny fraction of our articles with the highest number of potential English sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I wasn't suggesting we suddenly worked from hundreds of articles, having already performed brief assessments of many of the articles, we could have gone through smaller subsets. As for our top 100, we have 10 B class articles, 2 FL, 9 GA's. Then we 13 list class articles which do need people who know about the property (character/episode lists). Thats a total of 34 articles). Many of the articles in the top 100 are very much new properties enjoying spikes from being current or recently broadcast. I've barely heard of half of them. I've done a quick tally of our remaining articles but I think we need reassessments on them partly to highlight what needs doing on each article (some of them may simply need a quick copyedit of sorts) and partly because some of them may actually be B class. I'll put something together for assessing the current state of each article that will allow us to make notes.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is why i suggest looking for the articles with the most views, so that we bring the most benefit to the readers. WP:SE has done several projects in which they made it so that there is not a single stub-article. Sure its a smaller scope, but the dedication to organize, and find the most popular articles and such. There was even a graph to show progression of how many stub to A-class articles we had and how many of the articles were moving up. but either way, i still highly suggest we look up the ones with the most views. For example we look up the C, Start, and stub articles that have the most views. ANd we fix those up to B-class and from there we move on to the next C, start, and stub articles with the most views.

What WP:SE did it was organized like this:

• Most popular C-class: Anime A
• Most popular start class: Manga B
• Most popular stub class: Character C

and since manga and anime are the most prominent media, we could divide this into the most popular anime and most popular manga (by view count). Its an easier load of articles to work with at a time, and less intimidating. And considering some editors are pessimistic about the idea of collaborations being successful, i think starting off small would be good so we don't fall into quick failure. Lucia Black (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

by the way here is the chart here, the progress of WP:SE has been pretty consistent. i do believe we can show the members some form of progress if we choose to do this. Then again they chose to a "remove stubs if no sources can be found" campaign which is what you will see a huge landslide. I dont expect that in this wikiproject, but i do believe we need to be strict with stubs. Lucia Black (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename Mecha anime to Mecha (genre)

I recently made a subject to rename Mecha anime to Mecha genre here: Talk:Mecha anime#Rename to Mecha (genre) 2.0. Your vote is welcomed. Lucia Black (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, i think i change my proposal to merge considering theres already a genre for it. Lucia Black (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Japanese sources for Legendz

What are some reliable sources for Legendz? It is a multimedia franchise that includes a manga and an anime. Somebody gave it a PROD. While I found a very short ANN summary of a press release and a repost of a Viz press release, I want more secondary sources.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendz WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The AFD was closed, did a bunch of work and pulled a bunch of sources. Could be polished up a little more with some reception, but the sourcing for most of the content is done. Just most of this is all in Japanese so its difficult for me still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Help finding sources?

I need some help finding sources for the page Deep Love. It looks like this series is comprised of several story arcs/series and has had a live-action made of the first story arc. Can anyone help find sources? I don't speak Japanese, so I'm limited to what I can find via the text on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What you could do is possibly add a chapter list, to preserve it from getting deleted right away. And see if you could find any english sources. Lucia Black (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here there are some sources about the mangas in ANN:

• Deep Love: Ayu no Monogatari (manga)
• Deep Love: Host (manga)
• Deep Love: Reina no Unmei (manga)
• Deep Love: Pao no Monogatari (manga)
• Deep Love: Real (manga)

and here there are some links about the (first) drama:

• Ayu no Monogatari (at IMDB)
• Official site.

I hope this could be useful. --Zerabat (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the ANN links are sources as they are from the encyclopedia section of the website which is based on user generated content and are not reliable sources. Same goes for the IMDB link. The official site is a primary source and would not help to establish notability, which is based on third-party coverage from reliable sources. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Anon, thanks for your love while answering. --Zerabat (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's an online academic paper that references Deep Love in its intro. It should help for the background. [2]

• Japan Today article [3] mentions Deep Love as the first cell phone novel.
• Reading Worldwide article on cellphone novels: [4]
• CNN article on cellphone novels: [5]
• I think from "first cellphone novel" you can find a ton of sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Los Angeles Times articles [6] [7]
• Exposition magazine from Oxford [8]
• The Independent [9]

Most seem to focus on the first novel and not much on the sequels but keep digging :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, YThank you very much --Zerabat (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Need sources for anime stubs? Anime Encyclopedia can help

I needed sources for Forza! Hidemaru so I found:

• Clements, Jonathan and Helen McCarthy. The Anime Encyclopedia, Revised & Expanded Edition: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917. Stone Bridge Press, November 6, 2012. ISBN 1611725151, 9781611725155.

It contains entries on many anime series, some of which may not be well known. One element of caution: This Google Books preview does not show page numbers. Check the URL:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=rZg4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT291

See the "PT" there? When you get a particular page, record the PT and its number and put it in the citation WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Enoki Films titles without Wikipedia articles?

There may be some titles licensed by Enoki Films without Wikipedia articles

• Does anyone want to check http://enoki-films.co.jp/ and see what they find?

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You can search through INDEX but I see a bunch of familiar titles like Super GALS and Slayers. I'm surprised they have revived that website since it went down for a bunch of years. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Japanese division cut down its US office and so they're doing everything from Japan. The previous website had an Encino, CA address and said "Enoki Films USA" - Now it lists a Tokyo address and it's just "Enoki Films" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the index page, BTW. http://enoki-films.co.jp/pro_junandsarah.php talks about a Jun and Sarah. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have been unable to find a lot about Jun and Sarah. I did find the company is Tairiku Shobo but there is no obvious ANN entry about the anime. Can anyone figure out what the Japanese title of Jun and Sarah is? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Try this one Gude Crest. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That's it. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Rozen Maiden characters

There has been disagreement for a while as to whether the list of characters should or shouldn't be merged into the main Rozen Maiden article. I think it would be helpful to get more opinions on the issue. If anyone else is willing to give your opinion, please join the discussion at Talk:List_of_Rozen_Maiden_characters#Redirect_March_2014. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FLRC List of Naruto characthers

Discussion here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Template:Nihongo foot usage in articles

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

---

Is using Nihongo foot template acceptable in articles? Please do not inject threaded replies into the survey.

Survey

• Yes - Improves readability compared to having several Nihongo templates in succession. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - It does improve readability and it is useful. Wikipedia does not have a standardization for references or even variants of English, I see no reason why Nihongo foot's fate/usage rests on even shakier grounds. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• No: There is no precedent for using footnotes to provide alternate readings. In fact, there is very little usage of footnotes that are not citations on this project. Either the text is included inline or just don't bother providing it if its so unnecessary and obstructive that you feel putting it in a footnote is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: See my arguments below. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: Per the reasons provided above and below. Lucia Black (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: It helps in cases where a translated term has been expanded upon by the manga or anime translator's notes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: BUT keep it on a case by case basis. I can see this working well on larger articles not so much for the smaller ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Before Ryulong expresses his hate for this or me, I'm going to say I will withdrawal peacefully to whatever the result shall be and will forever drop this issue. Repeating my argument for pro usage, the template puts Japanese and Romaji into a note format so it makes it easier to read several "Nihongo words" in succession.

(Rozen Maiden manga and novels With and Without)

(GitS Game With and Without)

Again Ryulong, I am trying my best to resolve this peacefully, and am hoping you will act calmly to whatever consensus is achieved. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't start the RFC while the TFD is ongoing. And this issue does not concern just anime and manga pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to contact VG and Japan. It doesn't look like the TFD will end in deletion, if it does I will withdrawal this RFC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the issue of the TFD still being ongoing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If there was some broken rule, oops. For now, there is no harm in discussing his. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a side note, the nihongo foot is also in Stand Alone Complex and Cobra (manga). I genuinely believe its good for media more than character names. Its much more useful to have character names first. Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well maybe you shouldn't be adding all of these things if the titles aren't particularly important in the text itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Its important because its the original title, its just not as important to highlight the original title especially if it intrudes the article. I know the counter argument was prepared when you said that because who in the right mind would remove it? The thing is, the titles aren't removed, but for the sake of flow, we can't have them so detailed, but we can't have them so inaccurate either. Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  If the titles are that obstructive to text, then perhaps they're not necessary to provide, particularly if it's just a supplementary book's title or a soundtrack name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  I find it counter-intuitive to remove the knaji.hepburn.translation rather than putting them in footnotes. Lucia Black (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  In all of its uses where I found it, it was only being used to cut out text that's basically duplicating text elsewhere in the article. You used it to take out the title of every single instance of supplementary media that had the exact same title as the subject but with some new subtitle tacked onto it. Or its haphazard application at Rozen Maiden before I split the character list off from the main article, again. If you're only using it as taking "SPACE ADVENTURE COBRA〜ザ・サイコガン" or "攻殻機動隊 GHOST IN THE SHELL 上巻 ベーシックファイル" out of the prose then maybe you shouldn't bother to have that shit in the article in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  Also, keep your mouth clean. this is a valid discussion, and if you don't have the maturity to stay civil, then don't speak at all. that particular media didn't even come out in the US, so its original title needs to be available. being in footnotes also helps. You are having a fit over nothing. i can understand if this is being done in a place where they are being removed from particular areas where it doesn't affect readability, but you are just doing this out of anger, not reason. Lucia Black (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it is acceptable, but should be used sparingly. If the information aides the reader's understanding of the subject, it should be included. If its inclusion might be awkward in-lined in the body of the article, or too detailed, then it should be given in footnotes. And if the information is superfluous and doesn't aide the reader's understanding, it shouldn't be included at all. Before adding Japanese text, I think the latter argument should be given serious consideration. If the article can do without, it probably should. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I support the template, as I often feel that all Japanese characters commonly hurt readability. Japanese isn't a very common second language for English speakers, so for a vast majority of speakers, its unrecognizable characters that mean nothing to the reader. This template seems to cut down on that some, so I support it. (Though ultimately, as Odie says above, I believe much of the time it could be omitted altogether and be just fine.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Here's a somewhat neutral perspective. Perhaps, to narrow things down a bit further, the template seems quite useful to aid articles where there is either a large amount of small in-line Japanese text or a small amount of large in-line Japanese text. From a more general perspective, since this is the English Wikipedia, reading text from other languages tends to be off-putting at (select) times especially with regards to my opening statement. With regards to Japanese-related WikiProjects, usually some of the Japanese text can arguably be of interest to subsets of readers. These may include those with a keen interest in the subject matter and perhaps even understand the Kanji etc., while doing little to nothing in aiding the average reader other than appear as mid-sentence jargon. Although this isn't definitive and sometimes implementing the template on a case-by-case basis or at times, left up to the person who contributed the most to the article in question, may be the best courses of action. —KirtZ^Message 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  In nearly every instance of the template, it is being used on an article that is already probably considered to be in a niche market for the English audience as it was probably never released in English in the first place. There are perhaps times when this format has some use, but in nearly al of the instances I have seen it is being used to remove text that is probably not relevant or important in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  Fair point. Irrelevant text should be excluded to decrease clutter. However it looks as though the community would rather use the template as a compromise for that and somehow give such text at least some percentage of relevancy by way of a non-intrusive mention. I should probably add that I've never even heard of this template before this RfC and even if it was deleted I'm sure case by case discussions would resolve any further text issues. Frankly, with or without this template, there's going to be future debates regarding the relevancy of Japanese text so my opinion is that this entire RfC may be pointless. Again, I'm not taking anyone's side here. —KirtZ^Message 16:47, 15 March 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.

I dun goofed

I've created the template:PsychoPass but there is one or two issues. How do I explain well? Whenever I am going to edit it tells me I'm creating something. Any idea what's the reason? The template can be seen in the following articles: Psycho-Pass, List of Psycho-Pass characters, List of Psycho-Pass episodes (season 1) and Akane Tsunemori. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The "name" parameter in {{navbox}} has to match the name of the template itself. If you had made it Template:Psycho-Pass, your formatting would have worked, but all that needed to be done was this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor contesting use of Amazon.com as a reference

A user is contesting the use of Amazon.com as a reference for DVD releases, calling the links "spam". A discussion has been opened at Talk:List of Dragon Ball GT episodes#Amazon.Com is not a Reliable Source. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Amazon.com, Target.com and Itunes sales pages as reference for discography. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre dispute at Wizard Barristers: Benmashi Cecil

Iliyana Petkova (talk · contribs) has been adding several genres to the anime series Wizard Barristers: Benmashi Cecil without a single reliable source. I've disputed the genres, but Iliyana Petkova keeps referring to MyAnimeList, ANN's encyclopedia, and the Japanese-language Wikipedia as sources for his "correct information". I have pointed out to him that because those sites are user-edited, he apparently has a case of WP:IDHT. See discussion at User talk:Iliyana Petkova#Genres. The editor has also shown WP:OWNership behavior regarding the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tantei Gakuen Q

Hello everyone! Does anyone have the book Tantei Gakuen Q: The Last Mystery? I don't think it's easily available (atleast in my country). I would like to expand the series' article and the book would really help in the expansion. So, if anyone does have the book, please help. Thanks. ごだい (会話) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mangabookshelf - RS?

A glance at their staff reveals several contributors and the editor have contributed to PopCultureShock (RS) and other sites. [10] Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed it when I first looked, but the site is already listed on the Internet source page.Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X

Can anyone help me find more reception for this show? I dug up what there is, but I'm drawing blanks for further places to look. I'm not well-informed on what counts as reliable for anime articles, either. Tezero (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of List of anime series by series total episode count

Hello all, I would appreciate some project attention to the requested move of List of anime series by series total episode count, especially since the discussion has been relisted twice since I requested it. Thanks! 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Anime/manga reviews in Japanese

Is there a way to find reviews of anime/manga series in Japanese? I can't find a single review for Tantei Gakuen Q. I've searched literally everywhere and all links that come up are blogs (which can't be used). Can anyone help? Reviews in French, Italian, Spanish, or German would be nice too. Thanks! ごだい (会話) 13:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Need magazine/book sources for your articles?

Right, I have a week off and a fat pile of magazines and some books. This is a good time to me to make use of it and help people out with articles without too much getting in the way.

So heres the plan. here is a list of magazines and here is a list of books. Leave a message on my talk page if have a specific request/inquiry and I'll see what I can do.

Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Psycho-Pass Box

Does anybody own the Psycho-Pass DVD box. I would like to ask if it has extras such as interview with the staff which might be helpful to the following articles I created: Shinya Kogami, Akane Tsunemori and Shogo Makishima.Tintor2 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Toonami listings are driving me nuts

I'm having some major trouble with List of programs broadcast by Toonami. I've done a major reorganization of the list so that the programs listed are placed first, followed by previous lists of programs that have been broadcast on the channel, organized by block. However, an anonymous IP user insists on restoring the old version which has 200+ sections and details every single schedule lineup since the channel's conception (90% of which is unsourced). HERE The old version violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE in all sorts of manners, but he is threatening edit warring. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I just proposed a compromise that may solve the problem entirely. If anyone is interested, please voice your opinion to see if it is suitable. Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's just one editor and a bunch of people are supporting your change then that other editor does not have consensus for his version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Fandom Post

This is Chris Beveridge's current site. I didn't see it in the RS list. Reviews are formatted identically to the old AnimeoDvd reviews. It's just that the site is laid out more like a blog. Given that Mania is a terrible site that is pretty much useless for anything released after they bought AoD, we could benefit from a replacement for reviews and the odd news item to complement ANN.

Ultimately Beveridge's reviews are pretty much established as RS by default, it's more a question of do we need to make this a situational source, or a general one? The Blogs would be off limits as these are forum posts, as would the forum itself, but it's more a question of review contributors. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a roll call of established contributors but random use of the site suggests many of the AOD contributors have contributed in some form.Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a section of posts called The Official Word that is mainly by Beveridge, but around 2012 it has a few posts from members that I assume could be staff or at least articles by people he trusts to include in that section, for example [11] . -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a list of contributing writers here: http://www.fandompost.com/about/ Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Any further comments?Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the articles could be of good use, even those not by Beveridge. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This resulted into something? Will The Fandom Post (as a whole) be included on WP:A&M/I? Will The Fandom Post (only those articles by Chris Beveridge) be included on RS list? Or will Chris Beveridge be included as an individual? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dandy Sephy:, @AngusWOOF:, @Shiroi Hane:, @Narutolovehinata5:. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've started using them on a couple of articles since no one had any objections (setting aside they are already in use on a number of articles). Specifically I used one today by Darius Washington, who has reviewed for ANN. I don't see any reason not to use them when several of the contributors have written on known RS sites. I brought it to discussion more as a formality rather than a need for serious debate. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I already got an article turned into GA that included The Fandom Post as a source. I explained the reviewer why we consider the site reliable and there were no problems.Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support "Beveridge and staff writers" Angela Eastman writes for Comicbookshelf which is on the RS list, Briana Lawrence wrote for mania.com as a staffer and has published a horror novel - also was a staff writer for the Iowa State Daily [12] and guest reviewer at ANN [13], Matthew Alexander wrote a bunch of reviews for mania as well. Spot-checked other writers and many of them used to write staff reviews on mania. Chris Beveridge for sure, as he has been a panelist for AnimeonDVD/Mania and Fandompost at Anime Boston [14] and an interview with him on ANN [15] Here's an article by publishing company Melville House that references Chris Beveridge asking his writers on their opinions on Crunchyroll Manga, and lists some of the reviewers by name. [16] Thomas Zoth's "top 10 iconic heroines" list has been noted at Rightstuf's Dirty Pair reviews [17] Maria Selke's guest articles on School Library Journal: [18] [19] -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Angus. I just did a quick research "Name of contributor" + "Mania" in Wikipedia itself, and found the first 11 and the last 3 listed at http://www.fandompost.com/about/. Kate O'Neil ([20], [21]), Jonh Rose ([22], [23]), and Greg Smith ([24], [25]) are frequent contributors for Mania.com. Albeit, I coudln't find anything on Maria Selke.

I also understand Dandy and Tintor, but I think it's better to everyone to "officialize" it and put in the RS list. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

With all that said, I think we now have sufficient evidence that The Fandom Post (or at least its 19 staff writers) are RS. Can we add it to our list? But I have a question: can other than those listed at http://www.fandompost.com/about/ be used as RS. For example, searching reviews for Nobunagun I've just find a review by Kory Cerjak. While he is not listed among the staff, he has a long historic of reviews in The Fandom Post and I found it [26]. Kestrel Swift, Mastilo von Plume and Chris Homer are other examples of contributors not listed in the site's about. Should we add it as a source in any circumstances or is it better to put a note to only use articles by contributors with a "reputation" on other RS? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IIRC we have don't distinguish between individual reviewers on AoD/Mania, and I don't see why we should in this case. Given the number of established RS contributors, I don't think there is a need to limit to individuals, it would be difficult to manage anyway if we did.

Hm, ok. Should we wait some time or should we tak it to WP:RSN? Or, can someone finally add it to our RS list? To don't lef any doubt about its realibity I think we can also cite that ANN cites it ([27]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

High School DxD

Hi. Can anyone around here help me get involved in improving the High School DxD articles? I plan to make the articles up to at least B or a GA class articles. If anyone has sources or ideas, please let me know here. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23:, take a look at Talk:High School DxD#Reviews. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Naruto characters/archive2

There's practically no participation on this discussion, then I assume no one was notified. So, here it's. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I did notify the project (link). FLRC's don't really have the project's interest. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese translator anybody?

I found this interview that has the staff of the Naruto series talking about the episodes. Is there any Chinese translator available? Could be very useful to Sasuke Uchiha and Itachi Uchiha.Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translators available#Chinese-to-English might be helpful. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will give it a try.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alternate universes and omake theater in Megatokyo#Merge?

It would be good if more user can participate at the discussion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5 has nominated it for deletion instead, you can vote and discuss it there at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate universes and omake theater in Megatokyo. Lucia Black (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

One Piece character discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Recently added characters regarding the addition of new characters. Input from project members will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Anime and Manga At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Source details translation request

Hi all, in my quest to improve the article Puella Magi Madoka Magica, I have run into a source with great content (I already have a translation of most of the text), but for which I need more information on (translated title, date, author, etc.) The source can be found here:

• http://ultrajumpegg.com/#/column/0004/0029/01 (page 1)
• http://ultrajumpegg.com/#/column/0004/0029/02 (page 2)

What I need is:

• A transcription of the characters in the title (unfortunately it is an image so I can't just copy and paste)
• A translation of the title
• A translation of the author of the article (if it is listed)
• The date of the article (if it is listed)

If anyone would be able to help me out with this, that would be great! Artichoker^[talk] 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Title is "Kyakuhonka Urobuchi Gen-san intabyu- uruturajyanpu-honshi 'ULTRA NEXT' zouhohan", translation "Interview with scriptwriter Gen Urobuchi - Ultra Jump 'Ultra Next' extended version". Can't see an author (the interview is conducted by "UJE" which I assume stands for something like "Ultra Jump Editor"), and no date either. Although, if you go one level up, it lists the first part of the interview as being dated 2011.7.27 (and having the subtitle "#1 Mami-san wa kikakusho no dankai kara shindemashita (wara)"　or "#1 Mami died in the planning stages (lol)"), and the second part is dated 2011.8.3, with subtitle "#2 'Mahou shoujo no kyakuhon wo' to iwarete saisho wa mayamimashita", or "#2 'A script about a magical girl' was initially a pain". Or thereabouts. You might want to get a second opinion on those. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 08:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, both pages of this are just part 1. The subtitle on page 2 is different to the title of part 2. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 08:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have incorporated this into the ref, but would definitely be open to a second opinion. Also, if someone could transcribe the title to the actual Japanese characters and kanji, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

脚本家　虚淵玄さんインタビュー　ウルトラジャンプ本誌『ULTRA NEXT』増補版 Oda Mari (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Artichoker^[talk] 16:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Interview

I found this interview involving Ryota Ohsaka. It's in Japanese but it could be useful for the article since it's quite small. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Animerica request

Does anyone have Animerica vol1 issue 1? It's not listed on the resource page but someone might have it. I only need the Gunsmith Cats article. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tokyo Ravens#Characters

I raised this concern in this page, as this WikiProject is the only one covering the Tokyo Ravens article. I believe that the section Characters has multiple issues, including, but probably not limited to:

• Lack of references
• Not appropriate in the article
• Violations of a Wikipedia policy that I don't know which is appropriate

It so happens that that section is tagged for copyediting, as I am a part of the GOCE's May backlog elimination drive. If someone reads this post and this, it may be urgent for an immediate response on the action to be taken. Thanks in advance, Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone is very familiar with the series to fix it, i'm sure they would, but if not, its very hard to summarize and reference plot-related info for characters when we aren't familiar with it. I usually recommend to remove it and start over, or keep only the central characters. Lucia Black (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to my username, I am a Filipino and not a Japanese, and I have no knowledge at all about this novel. However, this suggestion of mine might also work: to list all characters in tabular form. That is, characters in one column and voice-overs in another. It may work for a two-fold purpose: to simplify the listing of characters and to list some background information about the characters in real life. A Wikipedia policy may state that fiction is not included in this encyclopedia, so in the meantime I think we should remove the information regarding the characters, leaving out their names and their voice-overs. Though probably we can leave a few information about their participation in the novel and remove those pertaining to the plot or story behind them. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggest removing the copyedit tag and marking it GOCEreviewed on the talk page. It's not ready. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done here, but I'm not sure what issues to place in the tag. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the issue parameter for the reviewed template, you can just say fancruft or accessibility issues. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done here. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We can either list the characters in tabular form, or like Lucia Black's suggestion, keeping only the central characters. Or maybe we can introduce list form in that section. What do you think? Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a character list in table format and it surely wouldn't pass the GA criteria with such a table. Base on the edit that placed the template on the article,[28] the problem was that the section contained many grammatical errors. From my perspective, the section needs to be completely reorganized, minor characters removed, and possible split from the article into List of Tokyo Ravens characters. However, this also requires that the plot section be completely rewritten to summaries the entire series to date, instead of just an extremely short teaser. Right now, most of the plot details are in the character descriptions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a nice idea. In the event that in the end of reorganization of that section, and we find it too long, then we can split that section into the new article that you are referring to and keep at least a few paragraphs summary. Probably we can leave just a short description about the characters such as A is the mother of B and B is the stepsister of C without the storytelling. Or the list form I was suggesting, A - voiced by B, A is the main character in the novel. I think we should have a vote here: the list form or 24.149.117.220's suggestion? Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Voting is evil. 2) This has already been hashed out at MOS:A&M#Characters. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The standard layout of the article is in the format generally acceptable by this WikiProject. The only things that need to happen here are either to split off the character and episode lists into their own list-class articles or simply trim them down. That is all. At the risk of not reading all of the above discussion, I really dont see the point of this discussion other than to simply find someone remotely interested in this page to work on it. —KirtZ^Mail 14:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I was the user who added the copy-edit tag to the section (and incidentally, probably am one of the few Filipino Tokyo Ravens fans out there, although I don't recall enough details to expand the character section). As mentioned above, I added the copyedit tag because I noticed that the grammar was off in certain parts of the section. Without having seen this discussion, I added a split tag to the section, as it's probably good enough for a split. However, as mentioned above, this could only work if the Plot section is expanded. I'm willing to do that, but I might need to rewatch the series or rely on external summaries to finish it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you can go ahead and move the characters to a separate page for starters. You dont really need a consensus for that. It's already overlong. And maybe that episode list as well. —KirtZ^Mail 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I'll hold of until the plot section is expanded. Right now, it's too short. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Seems appropriate to mention on this thread as well. Unbreakable Machine-Doll is also experiencing the same problem as Tokyo Ravens. —KirtZ^Mail 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Artbomb.net reliable source?

I was looking for more reviews when i encountered Artbomb.net as a possible source. The co-founder is Warren Ellis who has written several comics and apparently novels and scripts (i'm not familiar with him, but he seems to have the credentials). I was looking at other staff members and seem to also have some level of credentials to reviewing manga, but again i didn't look at all of them, just the main cast. Here is the "About US" page. Can anyone let me know if its a reliable source? I'm assuming its reliable, just don't know if its completely reliable (entire staff), situational (specific areas), or just one person (Warren Ellis).

I ran into it by seeing viz media feature one of their reviews on the back of their manga, but i learned in the past their not always reliable, but who knows. Lucia Black (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May want to ping WP:COMICS about this. This would definitely fall into the WP:SPS criteria. Beyond being comic artists themselves, what other writings on comics from this group have previously been published by reliable third-party publications? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Warren Ellis has columnist credentials with multiple articles at Wired UK magazine [29]. Some of the contributors such as Jamie S. Rich [30] have been editors in the comics industry. Tom Spurgeon is on the RS list. Regarding the website itself, I found this article of artbomb.com in the press: [31] Interview with Kelly Sue DeConnick where she describes artbomb.net as her first experience in comics was writing reviews: [32] It's not clear whether they have established themselves as manga reviewers like the contributors on Fandompost, but they certainly are involved in the comics industry. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

They don't necessarily have to establish themselves as "manga reviewers" if they establish themselves a comic reviewers. But at least a couple of their staff members have worked on translations for TokyoPop. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if their credible for comic reviews they are for manga. I think WP:ANIME should accept reliable comic review sites that also review manga. Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Adi Tantimedh has been a columnist for comics. His interview with Alan Moore was mentioned on techland.time.com [33]. Christopher Sebela has published comics for Marvel [34] Sam Humphries is a comic book writer. [35] Gail Simone is a comic book writer. Charlie Chu is an editor at Oni Press. [36] Dan Curtis Johnson is a comics writer. [37] Janet Harvey has written for DC Comics [38] Ian Shaughnessy has edited for Oni Press and writes a column there. [39] Library groups have listed it among their resource sites, [40], [41] [42] This book mentions the website as staff-written reviews about graphic novels [43] -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC), updated 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like its completely reliable. anyone object? Lucia Black (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I added it to the Reliable source list. if anyone objects, revert and please add your reasoning here or in the RS list. Lucia Black (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Greetings. I was just wondering why Avatar: The Last Airbender isn't withing the scope of this project? Is it because it didn't originate in Japan? It is obviously of the same style as a traditional Anime. Thanks. Chambr (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the Japan issue. I think originating in Japan is a dumb distinction to make (not least because of things like Code Lyoko whose primary country of origin is difficult to determine), but nevertheless that's the definition of "anime" this project has decided to use. Tezero (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This actually is sourced: [44][45], anime refers to all animation made in Japan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting that this project thought up that definition itself. Nonetheless, "anime" is frequently applied to things like Avatar and The Boondocks, and whether either usage is "correct" is a whole different linguistic issue. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The manga and anime focused RS tend to cover only anime and manga, with very few exceptions covering OEL manga or Anime-inspired cartoons. Although many times Avatar and the Boondocks get recognized as anime, their never fully confirmed to being them, but that the style strongly resembles. Lucia Black (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Anime isn't really a style, but the name given to Japanese animation. There are many stylistic characteristic that many anime share, but just because other animations used those stylistic characteristics doesn't make them anime. —Farix (t | c) 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You have the geographical purists and the stylistic artists... I wrote before about how the two groups fight like the people do over the definition of "Champagne". Truth be told, its both because there is no consensus as to either - and Wikipedia is not about establishing the consensus for the world. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#genres in infoboxes

Since this involves the anime and manga WikiProject, it would be great if the community could participate in this discussion to reach a clear concensus on the number of genres that should generally be listed in an article's infobox. —KirtZ^Mail 09:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, Dream Focus is up to his antic again. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How very dismissive of you. What antics are you referring to? Is this not a reasonable thing to discuss? Dream Focus 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Japanese RS (again)

Since the forum has become more active, i came to ask again if anyone would help in searching for Japanese reliable sources. The current list we have in WP:ANIME/RS is mostly made up of first-party sources. Does anyone know some third party sources that we can use and update our RS list?

I'm having a difficult time finding sources for older manga/anime but i have no idea where to look. This could benefit other members who want/need to use Japanese sources. Does any one know any good japanese sources? Lucia Black (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to native Japanese websites like Famitsu? Sometimes I use that website, even though its mostly video game related. There's this other one called animeanime. I find them useful. —KirtZ^Mail 13:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Famitsu mostly covers video games, and animeanime is good, but not always easy to find what you're looking for. I'm also looking for some specific to manga and live-action films. Lucia Black (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems here, the biggest one being that because of the language barrier, it's hard to find how reliable a source is. Even the ones we have tend to be used by ANN anyway (arguably thats how we discovered them to start with). Japanese sites seem to follow the same pattern as english language ones - once you get beyond official pages, most of them are random blogs or fan communities. The language barrier just makes the problem worse - with english sites we can at least research the contributors with ease to come to a conclusion.

There is a degree of context missing here. Is there any particular area you are struggling with? SephyTheThird (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm particularly having trouble with Uzumaki (film), Gyo and Tomie. Lucia Black (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We can look for what our currently English RS use as sources. Comic Natalie, animeanime.jp, Mantan Web, etc, are cited multiple times by ANN. Paying attention to the footer of those sources (not only ANN cites its sources), we can gather more sources. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm working on initial stages of something that might help with chapter lists as well as serialisation dates, which are arguably some of our greatest need of Japanese specific sources across the whole project is. It's in very early stages and would involve several gradual steps but I hope to have something ready soon. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

English sources are always preferred, but i believe we still need to look for reliable Japanese sources because although we have enough English RS, they don't cover every news about anime/manga. I usually don't have too much difficulty finding specific info. Google translate along with alternate translators seem to be improving to the near point of perfection. Still, i think it would benefit us to find more Japanese sources in general, even if we don't all know Japanese (some of the members here do). Lucia Black (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Titan, referenced material in infobox removed

The back cover of the official English release of the Attack on Titan manga[46] says "A visceral and fantastically intense action/horror story." - Anime News Network. The anime and manga have the same story, and the same action and horror. I explained this on the talk page, and I added that as a reference to the action and horror genres I added to the infobox. It got reverted. I had previously pointed out that the official English subtitled versions of the Anime on Crunchroll and Funimation listed "action" as one of the genres. The series is obviously big on action. My additions get reverted, while two unreferenced entries remain. More opinions on this please. Dream Focus 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the same discussion you are starting for the third time. Talk:Attack on Titan#infobox genres and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#genres in infoboxes. Please keep it to one place instead of making us all repeat the same thing everywhere. —KirtZ^Mail 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you're listening to what the community is saying though. —KirtZ^Mail 14:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I mention that discussion here, since it affects this project, asking people to go over there and give their opinions. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I forgot to post a link. And the community is saying different things, some wanting to ignore referenced information and instead just use original research of whoever wants to argue the longest to decide what genres to put in an infobox. Dream Focus 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  Also the discussion I started at manual of style was concerning two different things written on that page. Just things happening elsewhere got mentioned as the conversation went forward. Dream Focus 19:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

FL for List of Sword Art Online episodes

Hey everyone! I have nominated for FL the list of SAO episodes, mainly because I've expanded and added more sources than the past versions. I want to hear some of your opinions about the article if it passed the criteria. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 03:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Brazilian IPs

There have been about a half a dozen Brazilian IPs that have been changing the importance scales for many articles, the latest one is 179.177.15.85 (talk). I have put in a request at WP:ANI, to have all of these changes rollbacked, however changed do need independent review. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor has switch to 201.23.162.17 (talk) making the same types of edits. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now using 179.180.53.100 (talk). This editor is being very persistent. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting a rangeblock? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be hard to do without blocking the entirety of Brazil. The editor is on an entirely different ISP each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Brazilian editor seems to be focusing on the following articles. Despite repeated requests to him/her to discuss mass changes to the importance scale, the editor has included to engage in a slow motion IP hopping edit war. So I'm bringing up the articles myself.

• Tomoharu Katsumata: Top -> High
• Shinichirō Watanabe: Mid -> Top
• Bones (studio): Top -> High
• TMS Entertainment: Mid -> Top
• Production I.G: Mid -> Top

The last two seems fairly reasonable (at the very least, they should be high), but I know that it requires a consensus of the project to up an article to Top-importance. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the last three. I'm not convinced Watanabe should be Top though. Does he have "a essential historical influence on the medium"? Not from what I can see. Even his status as mid importance is of some debate, while Bebop is of significant influence on other works, can the same be said for his other works? I do feel some of our importance levels could do with some reassessment, much like the "major figures" list in the anime/manga template. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bones is one of our examples for a top-importance article as it is a highly influential and major anime production studio. Why do you think it should be demoted to high? —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will raise TMS Entertainment and Production I.G to Top-importance. The remaining three articles will remain at their current importance levels. —Farix (t | c) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

Hi, guys. I'm doing a major restructuring of the Sailor Moon article for a potential GA. The discussion is at Talk:Sailor_Moon#GA? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Gintoki Sakata

• Gintoki Sakata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please check this article as IPs have been changing the name of the character. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing/merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon

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 know the proper place to talk about this is on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page (or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council), but with the Sailor Moon WikiProject being inactive for so long, I was thinking if it could either be closed or made into a task force here. What do you guys think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I believe turning it into a task force is better off. Now that most of the members who originally ocntested aren't around anymore. Lucia Black (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Lucia Black's reasoning. It's time to move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I'm all for streamlining Wikipedia by merging an inactive Ani/Manga project with this main WikiProject. —KirtZ^Mail 03:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Does WikiProject Sailor Moon still have any members who are currently active? If so, please contact them about this. I'll also mention this discussion on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page. Finally, should this be an RfC? I don't really want a WikiProject to go with the consensus of just a few editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page and have notified a number of active editors that are/were involved with the WikiProject (incredibly, of the seven remaining "active" members given as of their last update, only two have been active within the past year, although another user has made a few edits this year as well). It was also mentioned on their talk page that the project should be active again given that Sailor Moon's remake will be airing within this year; how will that affect this discussion, and the Sailor Moon WikiProject as a whole? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I hate to say this, but does it even need to be a task force if no one's around? Or is that just a typical first step for defunct full projects? Tezero (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Its also if they are very close. The proposal to turn it into a task force was because there was never need for it to be a wikiproject even if it was active, but the members contested without giving a valid reason other than its their wikiproject. which is valid enough, but not productive. Lucia Black (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to start an RfC below to get more editors to discuss about this. We have relatively few active editors, so we could have some outside comments as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And I've managed to notify WP:VG, WP:JAPAN and WT:COUNCIL about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon be marked as historical, be turned into a task-force, or be kept?

Note: The discussion is here, rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon, as this WikiProject is the latter's parent project, and also because the latter is inactive, and only two of its editors who are marked as "active" have been active within this year. Another reason is because one of the options is to turn WikiProject Sailor Moon into a task force of this project. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge with WP:ANIME per my above reasonings. Basically, the inactivity has gone on long enough and though I am one of the active editors around here (to clarify my understandings, there are actually five of us now as of April 2014), I would accept a merger and remove the inactive members from the list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge even back then when it was active, it wasn't really worthy of its own project. Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The effort is still needed given the current state of the articles but as a taskforce now within our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The series is part of this WikiProject and it makes no sense leaving it in a place that is inactive. —KirtZ^Mail 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Seems an eminently reasonable solution to the problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge need more info Merge typically means blanking a page, replacing it with a redirect, and putting the content elsewhere. What does it mean in this context? Does it mean that, or just moving the content to WP:ANIME/Sailor Moon and redirecting the talk page to the main anime talk page? I do not see how anyone can comment on this when the nature of the merge proposal is not clear here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment @Bluerasberry: in the end it means less waste of space. the project has an incredibly small scope and i'm sure what members want is to merge it with this wikiproject by making it a task force rather than an independent wikiproject (which is actually a better option for the sailor moon topic). Lucia Black (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black Thanks for clarifying. I still am not convinced. Just because a small project is dead does not mean that I support its deletion, and without a plan to merge this in some thoughtful way, I do fear that whatever was built will be deleted. If the time is not invested to archive this properly then I have to vote to keep it where it is until someone will store it in such a way that anyone who was looking for this would find it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 22 May 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.

Merge

All right, I've closed the discussion and merged the project in as a task force. If anyone wants to help out, feel free to do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Top 5 stub and start class articles

Here is the list of the top 5 stubs and start-class articles based on most view counts per day. Also, i did not include video games or anything that mostly encompasses another wikiproject.

Stubs

• Noragami
  • Start class
• Space Dandy
  • Start class
• Witch Craft Works
  • Start class
• Sakura Trick
  • Start-class
• Engaged to the Unidentified
  • Start-class

Start

• Kill la Kill
  • C-class
• Log Horizon
  • C-class
• Nisekoi
  • C-class
• Tokyo Ravens
  • C-class
• Strike the Blood
  • C-class

I think we should focus on the stubs though. but if you have information ready to be sued for the start classes, that is fine too. I personally will be looking over the stubs, not so sure how far i'll go with one of them, but i'll let you all know which one i decided to focus on. Lucia Black (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on Nisekoi for a while, but it was mainly rated Start class because the anime began airing this year, so episode summaries should be filling in nicely, and because it needs a Reception and possible conception/development section. The graphic novel section was also incomplete. As for Space Dandy, there's Talk:Space_Dandy, other than that, it needs the similar Reception, Development, and Manga (if appropriate) sections. Please do help though. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to fill in. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) updated 18:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wind Rises might need reassessment. It's well sourced and covers a decent amount of information. It's unlikely it could be expanded significantly until the home release and whatever subtitled/english language extras that comes with (in the Uk at least, the Ghibli BD's typicallycome with supporting materials like interviews and behind the scenes stuff).Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I reassessed The Wind Rises upto C-class and replaced it with Strike the Blood article. Lucia Black (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems we're already doing progress. Lucia Black (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this go in the task force section? Is the plan to always have a running top 5 stubs and starts or just ones for a month to focus on? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time this was an "established" project, lack of "established" volunteers was made the project fade. Instead, i'm just going to be updating the top 5 stubs by popularity regardless of who sees it or decides to work on it. I think more volunteers will come in without stating their volunteers if i just update this. Its a project without the commitment i guess. Lucia Black (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bump (i will continue to bump this until all the current stub-class listed are start-class. When all the stub classes are moved upto start, i will create a new section with a new list of stub classes. Lucia Black (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A few weeks late, but all the Stub-class articles have been promoted now. Now all we need is to get some of our C-class articles to B, and some of our articles to GA. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to do that, that is fine, but i still want to continue bringing up more stub-start articles. i could look up the most popular C and B-class articles. and see where they go from there. Although, i will say getting them to GA will take significantly longer as it takes an neutral editor to evaluate. But i'll find a way. Lucia Black (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And with that folks, we're down to Strike the Blood. Whoever is going to tackle this article should note that it is going to take some doing because almost the entirety of the page is plot summary. —KirtZ^Mail 05:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Strike the Blood needs a rewrite on the anime summaries as they are copypaste jobs from Crunchyroll. I've tagged them as copypaste, but if someone's gotten around to watching the series, please fill that in. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

well the summaries isn't whats making the article any better, so they can be removed. Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

True that, I've removed them. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, can someone write-up a short reception and then nom it for C-class. I'm tired. Best. —KirtZ^Mail 03:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added sales date onto it, but it still needing a critical reception. Here more sources: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (See above), [52], and [53] (the last two are ok: WP:A&M/I#List of sources). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've composed a reception paragraph based on those sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank YOU! I've just ranked it as C-clas and stroke it on the above list. Now, should we work to to get C-classes to B or GA or work on more stub/star articles. I couldn't agree more with Kirtz when he (she?) said this lists are motivating. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think focusing on stubs->starts->C and C->B->GA as separate and simultaneous tasks is the way forward. Ultimately each article is going to need to be addressed based on what is available for improving the article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So should we get the next 10 most popular sub and start class rolling...or..what? Frankly, I think we should keep this as an ongoing community project because it appears that we can work on and assess pages a heck of a lot quicker this way. —KirtZ^Mail 11:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a pretty good idea. It would also be nice if we could promote more of our C-class articles to B-class, and work so that some of our B-class articles can become GA-class. And speaking of the assessment page, there seems to be a problem with it: some articles are shown to have outdated assessments (for example, an article can be shown to be Stub class when it is in fact Start). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nihongo for abilities and names termed in English?

Is Nihongo of much value for English names and terms, for example: "Twice Critical" (龍の手（トウワイス・クリティカル） Tōwaisu Kuritikaru ; Welsh Dragon (赤い龍（ウェルシュ・ドラゴン） Werushu Doragon); Dress Break (洋服崩壊（ドレス・ブレイク）); Zeus (ゼウス Zeusu); Odin (オーディン Ōdin). This is assuming the names are not of the major characters, and what you see is what you get. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to avoid that, but i suggest it only if its not entirely made up of katakana or hiragana, such as Zeus and Odin. Lucia Black (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd skip out the Japanese for all of those. We know the author wants the English word. Japanese characters won't add dept here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the anime or manga being discussed here, but it's worth pointing out that the kanji here meant differently from the katakana. Here, "Twice Critical" is the katakana, but the kanji 龍の手 means "Dragon Hands". This is a recent manga phenomenon where the kanji is annotated with furigana in katakana, the kanji specifying how it should be written, and the katakana specifying how it should be read (or presented in English). _dk (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to omit the Japanese text here. If you think it's too much when the phrases are parsed into English then maybe you should consider whether the term is all that necessary to the page in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like it is useful to retain when the kanji is involved, and delete when it is a pure katakana/hiragana pronunciation. In the Japanese dub of the anime, the terms are said in English like Dragon Slave for Slayers. On the cases where they list both, should both be romanized when they are significantly different? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, don't delete if it's just kana. Japanese text is Japanese text. It's a trademarked phrase being written in katakana even though it is an approximation of English. Again, if this sort of issue is causing problems determine if the terms are even important enough to include in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all of them are trademarks. Theres no way they can trade mark Zeus, or Odin. Lucia Black (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

They're not words native to Japan so they kind of can. At least in regards to their particular work of fiction. No one else can have a character named 秘神・オーディン or 覚醒ゼウス for example, because they're trademarks of Puzzle & Dragons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely made up of kata or hira. Lucia Black (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be detracting a little, and I apologise, but when exactly did this trend of adding English-word (or German-word) katakana furigana to kanji begin? The first things that come to mind would be some forms of shounen manga and LNs (e.g. Raildex LNs), and anything based on chuu2 themes, but does anyone know what work was the first to use this kind of style? Also, is there an actual name for this kind of thing in Japanese? --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that it's all over JoJo and Bleach. My have been prevalent in Dragon Ball too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, this is within the context of List of High School DxD characters, which has its sets of trademark-able English phrases like Boosted Gear, Sacred Gear, Balance Breaker but also the standard chess terms such as rook, pawn, promotion, checkmate, the latter group is hardly worth translating. The mythology names I have seen there, again mostly applied to minor characters, as well as in Heaven's Lost Property which uses them to name special items and nicknames. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Are "Boosted Gear", "Sacred Gear", "Balance Breaker", etc. that important to the discussion of the characters to require Japanese text?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sacred Gear is like the zanpaktou in Bleach, and "Balance Breaker" is the equivalent of the sword's "bankai" forms, so they can be mentioned within the context of their particular characters. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In Ichigo Kurosaki, you see the name "getsuga tensho" having nihongo. which makes sense because the pronounciation and translation could vary. i think it depends on how literal the translations are. Zeus (ゼウス Zeusu) and Odin (オーディン Ōdin) are using katakana as Romaji and they are exact translation, while Dress Break (洋服崩壊（ドレス・ブレイク）) can be interpreted differently.

So we should add them in if they aren't literally translated, or the localized name differs from the original name. hypothetically if some key term in a manga was called "Chi (血, blood)" we would include it. if blood was just romaji (ブラッド Buraddo) it wouldn't be as informative to include the katakana. However it would if the localized name changes to something different such as "Reds". Lucia Black (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If something is written in the Japanese text as 血 but read as ブラッド then you include both and buraddo. So for High School DxD, you include "{{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器（セイクリッド・ギア）|Seikuriddo Gia}}" and stuff like "{{nihongo|Boosted Gear|赤龍帝の籠手（ブーステッド･ギア）|Būsuteddo Gia}}" and the like when relevant. There's no inherent reason to omit anything if you're using proper nouns within the work of fiction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sacred gear, and boosted gear fall perfectly into my example. the primary writing is kanji, the romaji is additional. find a better example where its needed to add the romaji where its practically the exact same translation of the original. do you know what romaji is? if you do, you should know why its not necessary to include it all the time. Lucia Black (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Romaji is only not necessary when it is identical to what is considered the "English" version. There is never any reason to omit any of this information, because if you feel that one item is worth omission the whole thing probably is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You often contest for the sake of your own reasoning, not ever realizing that we're in agreement. romaji isn't necessary most of the time because its usually the same as the english translation. it sometimes trying to use the english. However, if the localized name chooses to use a different name despite there being an available english one, we can clarify that in the japanese version they are known as something else. but romaji being exactly the same as the translated term (practically reverse translation) is pointless. Ichigo Kirosaki has "getsuga tensho" because it is japanese, not english, it would be necessary to translate it. Lucia Black (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "English" field and the "Romaji" field of {{nihongo}} are identical, then there's no reason for one to be repeated. However, if you're arguing that "セイクリッド・ギア" or "Seikuriddo Gia" are to be omitted because of the use of "Sacred Gear", then you're wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats pointless, and you know it. Lucia Black (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's pointless to include them then it's pointless to bother mentioning the proper noun in the first place. Include everything or don't bother discussing it at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you know what i meant. its pointless to include katakana/hiragana that only serves to translate in english. Some require it, some dont. and there's a clear line. all or nothing is just trying to use systemic bias. Lucia Black (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not English. It's Japanese. And it could lead to confusion by saying that the phrase is read that way, because fifty billion websites just lift shit from the English Wikipedia and by not providing accurate information we may mislead. We've been through this whole "it's meant to be English" garbage over and over. If the text in Japan has to be constantly accompanied by the furigana then we may as well include it on the English Wikipedia as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

if the japanese text needs furigana, then we include the japanese text. if the furigana is the same as the english word, theres absolutely no point. Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

セイクリッド is not the same as "Sacred".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

i have a feeling you're going to be impossibly technical when you just need common sense. Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If what is normally kept in furigana is not included and you just give the reading as romaji, it misinforms the reader that those kanji may always be read that way. Thats why furigana should be included and romaji of what people consider to be just Japanified English words, otherwise why bother with any of the content?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If the furigana, romaji, and english are the same, theres no point. If they vary between translation, then its good to point it out. Its not that complicated, and if we dont inform the reader how they pronounce english words (with japanese spelling), then there really is no point. Lucia Black (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

They're never the god damn same. If we provide this content when it's a katakana title in Japan that's an English word parsed through katakana then there's no reason to treat anything differently for all these other cases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Japanese text is to help understand the term being used in a series, not to be systemic bias. And for that there are some situations that need it, some that dont, and theres a clear distinct line, whether you want to agree with it or not. Lucia Black (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, the Sacred Gear term is frequently used so it's not bothersome to keep the romaji, and helps identify it among the nihongo footnotes. I am more concerned about romanizing and adding "lit." translations to minor characters and terms where the names are clearly attempts at using English terms, and have been pronounced or subtitled as English in the anime, or written as such in the manga. The major characters regardless get the full nihongo treatment anyway. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats basically my point. theres no point for furigana and romaji if its exactly the same unless the english terms change through localization. Lucia Black (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's your excuse then there's no damn reason to include the kanji for the word either. In fact, why bother referring to the Japanese language at all if it's all "English" in your view. All or nothing. I mean all you need is to have the term used once as "{{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器（セイクリッド・ギア）|Seikuriddo Gia|literally "Sacred Treasure"}}" and be done with it for that word on the page. If you're suggesting to just have "{{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器}}" then the kanji serves no purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In the instance of this Sacred Gear example, since it has kanji that can be separately romanized, it could be listed as: "{{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器（セイクリッド・ギア）|Jingi (Seikuriddo Gia)|literally "Sacred Treasure"}}" and would require verification that 神器（セイクリッド・ギア）was what was printed in the sources and "Sacred treasure" as its localized literal translation -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: once again, you choose to give an example that doesn't help your case, but only shows you continues to misinterpret it. the example you have shown removes the romaji/hepburn. {{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器|Jingi|literally "Sacred Treasure"}}, but remove the translation.

@AngusWOOF: no, the furigana is useless as its trying to pronounce the english word already in use, the kanji however is japanese, the kanji is what matters. So you would use {{nihongo|Sacred Gear|神器|Jingi|literally "Sacred Treasure"}}. the furigana isn't there to help read the kanji, its an alternate name for the term which happens to be in english. Lucia Black (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was no kanji (神器, Jingi), and only furigana (セイクリッド・ギア) saying "Sacred Gear" and clarifying that the japanese call it "Seikuriddo gia" would be pointless. Lucia Black (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Except you are wrong here Lucia. In the context of the show, 神器 is "Seikuriddo Gia" so therefore the furigana and romaji of what you would consider English words is important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Prove to me that Jinji can be translated alternatively as Seikuriddo Gia, and i'll take it back. Otherwise its just an alternative name, not alternative spelling. Lucia Black (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the anime character profile HERE and they show the kanji and furigana for Boosted Gear, so that particular case would be acceptable to use nihongo with everything. "{{nihongo|Boosted Gear|赤龍帝の籠手（ブーステッド･ギア）|Akaryū tei no kago-te (Būsuteddo Gia)|lit. "gauntlet of the red dragon"}}" Granted they also translate the chess pieces positions but those aren't the proper nouns. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

But the question is whether the furigana is the alternate pronounciation of the kanji, or just an alternate name altogether. the kanji doesn't match up to the furigana, so it might aswell be an alternate name. Lucia Black (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell whether they made up ブーステッド･ギア first and followed it with the kanji 赤龍帝の籠手. In the actual episodes, they say ブーステッド･ギア, which the Funimation subtitles translate to Boosted Gear and is dubbed Boosted Gear. Kind of a chicken or egg problem. It's certainly not the case where they have some complicated kanji that they want to enunciate. Looks like the alternate name as you mentioned. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon Research

This is already in use on several articles, including at least one GA. However it's not on the RS list which I believe it should be.

The site [54] was founded by Jerry Beck, who aside from being a animation expert in general, was cofounder of Streamline Pictures. One of the main contributors to the site is Fred Patten, so at the very least we can use his articles. I certainly will be using a few of them on existing articles. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The website is a little difficult to manuever if you're not familiar with the setup. But it looks like it has some pretty good exclusive info here. I'd say its reliable. Lucia Black (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me, the names of the bloggers are writers or animators in the cartoon industry; some are new writers fresh out of college, but others are fairly established. Not sure what they have to say about anime besides the Disney-related ones from Miyazaki: Will Friedwald, Jim Korkis [55], Mark Kausler (animator on Looney Tunes Back in Action) [56], Fred Patten, Thad K [57] [58], David Gerstein, Tom Stathes [59], Milton Knight, Greg Ehrbar [60] [61] , Mike Kazaleh, Steve Stanchfield [62], Charles Brubaker [63] (also studied in Japan), Charlie Judkins [64]. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Brubaker has some interesting articles on anime history, but I've not checked the other writers out. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

F-Zero Climax game development

F-Zero Climax game development information wanted. This game is related to the anime F-Zero: Legend of Falcon. See Talk:F-Zero Climax#Development for more. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Anime and manga, "Selected biographies"

There are currently FIFTY articles linked in the "Selected biographies" section of Template:Anime and manga. Editors have been calling for reducing this since October 2013. Please add your thoughts on this at Template talk:Anime and manga#Collapse Major figures..-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting that it was only two weeks ago that 30 articles were removed from the list.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Japanese sources

Through my search i found a few japanese new sites that dont necessarily relate to anime/manga, but i thought i would inform the wikiprojct so that they can make a decision.

• Gigazine
• mynavi(news)
• EnterJam
• Watch Impress(AV watch)
• anikore

Let me know if these seem reliable to use. i think anikore might be the only one with reviews. Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed these sites at all? Lucia Black (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to be bold and use these sources anyways, if anyone here has a problem with using these sources (i think Watch impress is used by WP:VG) then bring it up. Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know your reasoning for determining their reliabilty? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Gigazine, mynavi, and Watch Impress both seemed to carry news information the other reliable japanese sites (that i know of) has and semed to be reported by them at least some of the time. Anikore and EnterJam i'm the only one still looking into. I'm not sure if Anikore's reviews are based off of users or profesionals. Lucia Black (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. How did you determine that the news carried by the first three sites is reliable? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find any bias in any of them, for news, and again hold information that i can't necessarily find anywhere else in other third-party news sites. But what do you think about these sites? Do you see any red flags? Lucia Black (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not able to properly review them, unfortunately; however, you might try at the Wikiproject Japan and see what they think... Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Shonen Jump

An IP user isn't happy with the change of Assassination Classroom being listed with it's English title on the page. Their argument is that we should use the japanese title on the japanese magazine page. Personally I think this is nonsense because the english title is Assassination Classroom and this is the English wikipedia (with long established practices for english naming where it's official). I'm attempting to argue the point on their talk page. So far it's just 2 people having a difference of opinion. Some other opinions/eyes would be nice (the page does need improving in general). I did insert the romaji into the nihongo template but this didn't discourage them from reverting my changes. SephyTheThird (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest following the format established by MOS:WORKS#Books in languages other than English. —Farix (t | c) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Viz Media licensed the manga in NA under "Assassination Classroom". Thats the name we should use because when a reputable distribution company picks up a series in English, the Project generally uses whatever Title they decided on. —KirtZ^Mail 13:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about a list entry here where we have a Manual of Style that directs how non-English works may be listed. In accordance with MOS:WORKS, the listing should follow the format of Ansatsu Kyōshitsu (暗殺教室); English translation: Assassination Classroom. Both titles are still given and the wikilink is to the English title per WP:USEENGLISH. But this makes it clear that the works wasn't originally written in English. The only cases where I see it is reasonable to break the rule is when the original title is a katakana form of a English title (ie Bleach and One Piece). —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, your suggested order is the most acceptable version. —KirtZ^Mail 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Does that MOS apply here? It seems aimed more at a fixed biographical/sets of works for individual creators/performers rather than lists of whats currently running in a magazine, which is subject to change. Offhand, our articles have always been setup the same way, with either a table, or a nihongo list and with the same template usage. Really, if the english name and article title is used, and the romaji title also included, does it make any difference what the order is? It's obvious the work is non english to begin with. Actually, this has gone off topic, the article title/wikilink should be the english title, with the romaji included, regardless of the "nationality" of the article it is used in. That was the main point of contention. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD request

Antique Amor - Obvious hoax article. I nominated it for speedy - it wasn't for some unfathomable reason. Author of article has removed prods. I can't start an AfD as an IP, so... 12.249.243.118 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I started an AFD for it. Calathan (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shura no Toki – Age of Chaos

Hi, guys. I've removed this because I consider it to be WP:Fancruft and maybe WP:OR. However, I was reverted and every attempt to talk is useless [65], [66], and end on curses at me [67] or... (what hell is this?) How to deal with a kid who thinks you are a kid? [68] Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section the the bases of an WP:IINFO violation and that it has not relevance on the topic of the manga itself. We will see if there is a reaction. —Farix (t | c) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Another ANN's encyclopedia reliability discussion

Chunk5Darth (talk · contribs) is claiming that ANN's encyclopedia should be a reliable source for credits on the article Bryan Cranston. Discussion is occurring at Talk:Bryan Cranston#ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 00:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep things in perspective, the citation solely supports Cranston's anime name, Lee Stone. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is based on what exactly? —Farix (t | c) 01:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

ANN's encyclopedia section isnt reliable as anyone can add anything to it, this includes false information. On the other hand, ANN's news articles are reliable. —KirtZ^Message 11:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That the issue, anyone who registered to the site could have have put that info in (hypothetically I could have). We need a better source to cover this. Also, assuming that we don't remove the current citation, I think it should he reworded since it currently only mentions the Anime News Network and that could imply that it is the news section and more reliable a source than it really is.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational explicitly states that, " the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards." This is supported by the 6 discussions listed directly afterwards. —KirtZ^Message 06:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if it's user-edited, consensus says it's got to go, even if it's from an otherwise reputable site. That happened at WT:VG with a lot of user-contributed information from GameSpot that often couldn't be found anywhere else. (Of course, this absence raises the question of whether it should've been trusted in the first place.) Tezero (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Gamespot and GameFAQs are owned by CBS Interactive who owns TV.com, so only the staff-written articles are reliable, and not their databases. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Past AMCOTW}}

Template:Past AMCOTW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Need some help on Sailor Moon-related work

Since WP:WikiProject Sailor Moon is now a task force, can someone help me remove the project templates and replace them with the task force information? All of the categories need to be fixed up too. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Which templates and categories do you refer to? Sorry I haven't responded, I haven't had the time to devote time to it until now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We should move all WikiProject categories to the task force ones and replace the project templates with the task force parameter. I'm planning to ask for a TFD if possible. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay and I marked the wikiproject Sailor Moon talkpage template as historical purposes.

All right. Can we remove the template from the articles related to Category:WikiProject Sailor Moon articles and merge them into Category:Sailor Moon task force articles? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

is that necessary? do other task force have specific categories? Lucia Black (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Japanese chapter titles?

I've been laying the groundwork for getting chapter lists going for some important older titles and newer titles (such as those on Crunchyroll) that need japanese titles or creation. However while having access to the titles in scanned form is easy enough, it's far too much work (even on just one longer series) to input all the japanese titles by hand - especially with seinen works without kanji readings. The source doesn't need to be "reliable" as they will be checked with the actual contents pages, they just need to be in a form where they can be copy-pasted. Any suggestions of possible "sources"? (ANN Ency isn't so good with manga as it is anime in this regard) SephyTheThird (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Young Sunday

Hi. Anyone has the 1997 March issues of Weekly Young Sunday? I need something from the 16th issue, please help. Ryoga (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

MÄR-Heaven AfD

the article MÄR-Heaven is up for deletion, you can discuss it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MÄR-Heaven. Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Proposed merge with Eren Yeager but it's quite inactive.Tintor2 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Anime split for Sailor Moon

I've been currently working on a project to split the original anime of Sailor Moon to make more room for the new Anime series "Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal". This is what it looks like currently User:Lucia Black/Sailor Moon (anime), the only thing that it needs is Plot and Localization (from the article: Sailor Moon (English adaptations).

Let me know what you think. Lucia Black (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Inu?asha

Maybe it worth a look at. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it, and the editor has a point, and after visiting Viz's website, I am inclined to agree with them. Chambr (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I think we can invoke MOS:TM as the capitalization is purely stylistic. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So by that judgement, it should have always been "Inuyasha" and not "InuYasha" like it is now? Chambr (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether it should have always been "Inuyasha" is neither here nor there because consensus can change. However, CamelCase trademarks are generally discourage except under two conditions. 1) It makes the trademark more readable. 2) It reflects general usage by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia should not be using a name that goes against the MOSTM if even VIZ itself has stopped using it.--76.65.43.92 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Anime and Manga at Wikimania 2014

Please note: this is an updated version of a previous post that I made

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon characters images and more

Im making a discussion because Lord Opeth feels its best. As shown here i intended to remove an image of a stopwatch and universe because they are only there to represent space and time. which seems unnecessary. Similar images are found in Sailor Mercury, Sailor Mars, Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Uranus, Sailor Neptune Im here to talk it over despite the fact that it seems pretty clear. but since im here ill make it worth my time by also suggesting removing images of the planets and even the table of when their abilities/form were introdiced as it seems to be just WP:FANCRUFT. Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same when looking at those pages a few days ago. Those images really need to go. They seem to have been put there to try and establish some kind of real world connection from a fictional universe; as you said, fancruft. They also are rather obstructive along with that table that for better or worse, should be in prose (as a suggestion). —KirtZ^Message 23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Im also in favor of the images being removed, I am pretty sure the reader can follow a wiki-link to the Neptune article from the Sailor Neptune one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Those images do not illustrate anything in the article. They are literally random images. The image of the planet can go as well for the exact same reason. —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing there appears to be a consensus I have removed the images of the planets of the articles mentioned as well as the symbols. Thinking of it more I have mixed feelings on the planet images though, I mean at the very least a wiki-link should be placed in the article linking the planet articles to the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think wikilinks is an issue at all, but the images of the planets dont help understand the character better.

Does anyone feel they shoukd be kept?

Another point is that the table only lists specific chapters and episodes of what form was introduced. i think their already in the prose. Lucia Black (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as useful as showing a picture of the moon on the main article ;) Some of the details do have me curious, like the character depictions over the different media. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So should the tables be removed or not? I think the only first appearance in the manga, anime and live actions of each is necessary. The other appearances of different forms arent necessary. To be honest, the profiles and powers/abilities sections are way too bloated and sort of resemble something from a wikia page. Sigh. —KirtZ^Message 18:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That can be presented in the infobox, but overall, it just not that helpful to know in the prose of the article, it would sound too much like a GUIDE. Lucia Black (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Per template:infobox animanga character: "Chapter, issue, episode, or volume the character first appears. Excludes cameos, brief mentions by other characters or the narrator, and subsequent appearances in other media adaptations." I would just limit it to the manga and anime as they were released in the same original run. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I still suggest avoid adding this in the prose, only in the infobox. Lucia Black (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So i'm getting ready to remove the ability table. Any objections before i do?. Lucia Black (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections for me. Also, I've already pinged Tintor2 and Knowledgekid87 about a rewrite of the plot summary to just focus on the manga as I am doing in my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure its necessary to have a sandbox for the whole page. Lucia Black (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

THEM Anime Reviews?

Resolved

 – The website is back up and running. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I constantly click on THEM's [themanime.org site] and it doesn't seem to be working. does anyone else have this issue? Lucia Black (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's down for everyone (at the time of this writing). I would say wait a day or two before we start suspecting it's gone for good.--十八 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to the site's lead reviewer and am now awaiting a response (I've sent him a few e-mails before regarding the reviews on the site, so he's familiar with me). The site used to occasionally go down, especially when a review was about to be posted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've received this reply from Carlos Ross, one of the site's reviewers and de-facto leader: "Sent a ticket in to the server host. We'll see what's what in the morning". Let's see what happens. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so hopefully it gets fixed. Lucia Black (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Titan Archive

Should we get a bot or something to start archiving the AoT Talk pages? I dont know how to do this. The main article's talk page has gotten quite substantial. —KirtZ^Message 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

its a simple procedure really. WP:ARCHIVE could help you out. But rally its just a cut and paste job. Lucia Black (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I have seen talk pages where there have been 100 or more threads if this were the case I would say go for it but it is not likely (But not impossible) that the talkpage for AoT is going to get that kind of traffic over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Archive at Talk:Attack on Titan/Archive 1. —KirtZ^Message 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X Plot/Characters sections

I've worked more than a bit on this article and am interested in pushing it to GA/FA status. There's one organizational concern I have, though: Should Plot have a subsection for Characters (with a second subsection being for Story or Synopsis), or should the characters only be covered extremely briefly in the plot summary? I'm aware that a Characters subsection isn't standard for anime/manga GAs or FAs (they typically just include a character list as a "See also" in Plot), but Sonic X is in an unusual situation because it's based on a game franchise and has no separate character list to house its numerous original characters; the list was redirected for lack of notability. Opinions? Tezero (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a hard and fast rule for this. As you are the primary contributor to the article and are the most familiar with its content and sources, I think it's honestly up to your judgment. If you want my input though, I'd opt to not have an entire subsection in the plot and only briefly cover the characters there. Artichoker^[talk] 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Artichoker. If the character is important enough to have any impact in the plot she/he should be mentioned. If no, if it's only a sporadic appearance, a mention in List of Sonic X episodes should be enough. Also, info on most characters are already covered on List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I did it. The result is a complete (it wasn't before) but surprisingly long plot section; I'll see if I can't clean that up a bit. Tezero (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X credits

Would I be able to use the credits to cite information about the show's musical theme, voice actors, etc.? If so, how? Tezero (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You can use {{cite episode}} since the credits are often shown in episodes. But i only recommend this for voice actors. Lucia Black (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I did that, and the article's at GAN as of this afternoon. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability of voice actor discussion

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Voice_actors is where the discussion about Voice Actors meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or not, and if passing Entertainment was enough if they didn't meet the GNG also. A lot of voice actors are being sent to AFD right now based on this. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's that straight forward. There are certainly many notable voice actors, but there are many more who aren't, and it's not necessarily clear what defines a "significant number of roles in large number of notable films (etc)" - especially for anime. I don't think "most" English-language va's pass those 3 criteria - especially fan base (it's easier for japanese ones to do so for various reasons) and I think they should be treated the same as every other article - through coverage in reliable sources (be it reviews or news articles) on an individual basis. WP:Entertainer is part of WP:N, articles should still try to pass the more basic notability guideline that WP:Entertainer is a subsection of of. If it can't you should still try and show notability on an individual article basis. I don't think AFD's are inherently wrong in this case, although a "test case" would have made more sense than a batch listing. To be completely honest, no (or poor) referances on any page is a legitimate basis for an AFD, regardless of how significant the roles are. If people are wanting these articles kept, than it would be helpful if people added coverage to them. A keep vote doesn't change the need for the coverage. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on the hope of Wikipedia's notability policy making sense or being consistent, but it definitely helps shield articles from AfD to provide them with references that show their subjects' notability as soon as possible. (Muffled "Delete You" by Ashley Tisdale playing in the distance) Tezero (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Two or more different reliable sources with significant information should be enough to pass N (assuming the information is useful - i.e a page listing their works would confirm their works but not show us why they are notable). The issue tends to revolve around the quality/reliability and number of sources. An example for voice actors would be that IMDB and ANN's encyclopaedia are unreliable because they are both primarily user contributed databases, however they tend to be used as main/only sources for things like cast lists (in good faith). So yes, you can argue about passing a sole sub section of N, but fulfilling the main basis of N would do a far better job of making your case. For what it's worth the best sources for english language voice actors are the various US publications like Newtype USA, Animerica and Otaku USA. ANN can help but unless they are major con attractions or reviews of one of their major series, you shouldn't expect too much. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that "two or more" and "significant" are not well defined. Silver the Hedgehog, for example, closed with a consensus to merge despite having two articles written just about him. Tezero (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, You know what wikipedia's notability policy is. not every editor follows it, and there are isolated events. Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion is now about removing that from the Entertainer entirely, thus allowing a large number of voice actor articles to be deleted. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Voice_actors Please take the discussion there. Dream Focus 01:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to this section, the voice actor articles definitely can use some biographies and related to their most significant roles to justify their existence on Wikipedia regardless of how WP:ENT is defining its criteria. They also need better references for their voice roles, which can be secondary-sourced from cast announcements, convention write-ups, interviews (assuming the voice actor isn't making the claim first-hand), or cite episode on the closing credits. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding Wikia Fansites to External Links

Just a heads up. This is a discussion being started by Piotrus on whether or not wikia fansites should be included in the External Links of articles - here & here. Need more eyes on this. —KirtZ^Message 16:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

These aren't general discussions. Individual cases just depend on whether the wiki has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", which has the same revolting, meaningless air to me as "significant coverage in reliable sources". Really, we don't have any policies with relevance beyond #12 at WP:ELNO. Tezero (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tomokazu Tokoro article needs expanding

Someone need to expand the article on Tomokazu Tokoro. - Hei Liebrecht 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon Archive

Another archiving request for Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon page. - Hei Liebrecht 05:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Eren Yeager

I need suggestions in Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Rework regarding the draft of a character article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)