Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 63

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Users on the loose

Seems we've been seeing some rather weird edits to our articles. Specifically, someone(?) has been adding "citation needed span" templates on various articles. Which doesn't seem disruptive; however, this edit by Benlisquare seems to say that something went wrong. Now what do we do? I was thinking of starting a sockpuppet investigation case, but the edits don't really appear to be disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Since that editor is purely dedicated to marking anime plot summaries with {{cnspan}}, I'm inclined to believe that they're here to try to prove a point. You don't normally see an editing pattern like this (hell, not many people even know about the existence of {{cnspan}}). --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: So now what should be done? Nothing, AIV, or SPI, or the latter two? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna open up an SPI.--十八 09:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoEuhophonium.--十八 09:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Juhachi:Obviously, he is my stalker and puts a tag on the articles that I contributed--Infinite0694 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Juhachi:@Infinite0694:@Benlisquare:We could report those vandals at WP:ANI. Also, if you guys have twinkle enabled, you can RPP for page protection on those pages being vandalized. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagging vandals again

Vivian Mii appeared and added unnecessary tags on the articles, so the problem has come to the fore again. Obviously, he is the sockpuppet of "HoEuhophonium", so I rolled them back all.--Infinite0694 (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Added CRE ZE who posted the unnecessary warnings to my talk page and said, "inappropriate use of rollback". -Infinite0694 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Empire M again. He is doing the exact same things that "HoEuhophonium" and the other socks were doing[1]. --Infinite0694 (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- He also harassed me on my talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor changing titles and changing linking to be to incorrect titles

Magicperson6969 (talk · contribs) has been changing pages on the portal and adding false titles in some cases (for example, changing "New Dominion Tank Police" to "Crusher Police Team Dominion" (which isn't a title used by anyone as far as I can tell), see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). He is also removing correct links and pointing them to either the wrong article, or removing the subheader link (see my corrections here, here, here, here, here, here). Everyone may want to keep an eye on edits by this editor as they have been very active the last while. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a real problem with white spaces inside templates and elsewhere. I've already told him to knock it off once.[2] He was also involved in the cut and past move of Dominion (manga). Given the other problems with the editor and the lack of communicated with those who have problems with their editing (see talk page history), is this a block on the level of WP:CIR? —Farix (t | c) 09:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was another thing he was doing on the portal pages. I don't mind that, but it seems a waste of time, which I what I told him on his talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This same user had also been deleting the history of talk pages that had been turned into redirects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also noticed as well that Magic has continued to blank his/her talkpage [3] every time an editor tells them what they are doing is wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he did that with my comments there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, forgot about warning him about that.[4] —Farix (t | c) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Any editor can remove comments from their talk page, even comments by others. It's not considered polite, but it's still acceptable. They are always available in history, so no worries. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should give that user a welcome notice and put him on admin incident notice board. Doorknob747 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I trust Nihonjoe's judgement here, if he wants to bring it to ANI he can feel free to do so. In my opinion I feel that the blanking of the talkpage while not prohibited sends a WP:NOTHERE message, I mean how many editors have told this editor to knock it off? Keep in mind too that every user is different, in your case you reached out to editors more for example and I usually don't like taking to editors to ANI unless I have to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Separate infoboxes for second seasons?

There has been a bit of an edit war on Fate/stay night about whether the second season of Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works should have a separate infobox. My view is that because it is just a second season and not an entirely new season, their should be one infobox should cover them all. Having multiple infoboxes for each season will be quickly overwhelm the article, especially on articles with multiple series and media releases. Imagine what Naruto or Bleach would look like if each season had its own infobox. Having breaks between each season is not like most western television series. For example, Survivor, Star Trek, and 24 have just one infobox for the entire series even if their are half a year breaks between each season. I don't see how anime series would be any different. —Farix (t | c) 04:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't be different. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

They didn't give the series a weird title/subtitle for its second season like all those other anime series, so I would say no. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if they give something like "Great Anime Adventures: Season 2" or "Great Anime Adventures 2", I would still say that it is just one series and should only have one infobox. —Farix (t | c) 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking this over, maybe there can be a collapsible option or something? When the info-box is too long for the information it contains the result is the page stretches, it also makes the page more difficult to read. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kikaider

This franchise needs major work done, I have already redirected the character pages un-sourced for years. If anyone wants to place anything up for AfD here feel free. In my opinion when you have lots of un-sourced things, it is best to condense things so they are easier to source first before expanding the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Japan's best seller list?

Hey, I have a question- what are the top-top bestseller lists in Japan for books, manga, and so on? I'm trying to get something going here about bestselling lists being used as a sign of notability for authors, but there is a consensus that it would have to be the most well thought of lists, ie the most reliable. I know that there are some in Japan that are highly thought of, but I can't remember their names. Can anyone help me out with this? Also, if you know of any other non-American centric lists that would be the equivalent of the New York Times Bestseller List, then that'd be great! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oricon has a weekly sales ranking list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As does Rakuten, Yurindo, Nippon Shuppan Hanbai, Kinokuniya, Bookmeter (読書メーター, though this appears to be a site where visitors do the ranking, or the results of a weekly poll,,,didn't have time to look deeply into it), Bunkyodo, Yomiuri Shimbun. You can find more using this search. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

Seems our Assessment page has a rather poor backlog. A request for assessment I put up a week ago (for Shirobako) hasn't received a reply, while the other articles which did get assessed but their entries in our assessment page weren't updated to indicate that they have been reassessed. We need more eyes on the page, and more importantly, we probably need a reassessment drive for our recently expanded articles (i.e. articles on currently airing shows). What do you guys think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

B class is the biggest hurtle, I wouldn't hesitate to label an article a C if I feel like it is above start class but beyond that requires a more detailed look. You are right though overall there is a backlog. As it is I am struggling to keep up wit hall the un-assessed articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I kicked the back log a little bit. Feel free to add new entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone should create a 2015 archive page. At least we can clear the finished ones. —Kirt^Message 21:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of K-On! characters

Well I just created a new character list and it is sourced okay, is anyone here good at making an improved lead? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles

Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okazu dead link repair

Any links to okazu.blogspot.com should be replaced. Hopefully the following will help with that.

Get old URL

http://okazu.blogspot.com/2009/05/lesbian-anthology-sparkling-rain.html

Replace FQDN and terminate with a slash '/' instead of the HTML file extension '.html', use it and hope for a redirect

http://okazu.yuricon.com/2009/05/lesbian-anthology-sparkling-rain/

Get the new URL from the resulting redirect or check to see if the date ('15/') can be added or look in the archive

http://okazu.yuricon.com/2009/05/15/lesbian-anthology-sparkling-rain-english/

Archive link: http://okazu.yuricon.com/2009/05/

Get the title from the '<h2>' tags and the date from the URL or '<div class="meta">'

Lesbian Anthology: Sparkling Rain (English)

2009-05-15 or May 15th, 2009

Could a bot be used for this? – Allen4names (contributions) 05:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to clear out the ones that were searchable by "okazu.blogspot.com" but there are still a bunch of them under Erica Friedman or Friedman, Erica that will need to be converted. To help with this I've been putting work=Okazu and publisher=Yuricon on the cite webs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a search [5] to help narrow down what needs to be changed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the steps above to include searching the site's archive pages. – Allen4names (contributions) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a request for a bot to do this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A little help right here

An anon and me have been trying to add content to List of Gintama° episodes by adding titles to the episodes divided in two. I tried number column but it's not working. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tintor2, you have to use Japanese episode list multi-part to this purpose. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but another anon already did it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Claymore Chapters FLRC

I have nominated List of Claymore chapters for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonZero (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Duel Masters

This article could really use a split or two, before anyone starts though any ideas on what would be notable enough? I am ready to merge out the character info into a separate article and get rid of all of the un-sourced setting info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's side details related to the character, plot shouldn't be rehashed in a characters list unless they have their own article. It has obvious prose issues; the characters list should just be left there instead of hidden away where it will never be fixed. Too often, people assume notability is inherited with character lists, when it could just have trivia information removed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about multiple series here: 13 animes, 2 anime films, and 4 manga. All of this info cant be contained in one article, splitting and merging out the character info in my opinion would be a good start. My proposal is to split article into separate articles if possible that cover all of these anime series separately. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Having lots of media adaptions is not an excuse for including lots of plot points. If it takes three seasons to animate one manga series, it doesn't become four mediums worth noting. It remains one. You don't see Goku or Vegeta articles include everything they did in their movies. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot points are the problem, which of the series are notable enough to have separate articles? I would like to get some out of universe info pumped into these separate articles if possible. If it is to remain one article, what do you propose for a new layout? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're second sentence opening paragraph made me think you only planned on splitting the characters. If it's the anime adaptions, I'd use subheadings like Megaman NT Warrior and create an episode list. As far as the plot points for each anime goes, I'd just include a premise sentence and leave the rest to the episode summaries. Though I've shared my opinion, I have no intentions of stepping in and doing any sort of interference. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine thanks! Sorry if I caused confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Need help regarding uploading anime-related photos

I had an offer on my talk page from the site owner for a picture that would be used for a wikipedia article but I'm fairly clueless on how to do the whole picture upload/media thing. Are there some folks who do this regularly that could help out? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Email templates. I haven't investigated your situation at all but as long as the image is appropiate, I guess there wouldn't be a problem. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Following from this, could we do that old proposal of mine of contacting the main voice acting agencies and ask them if they could release pictures of their talents with an appropriate license? Most of our articles on voice actors (and singers for that matter) still lack images. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are not a main concern though, most of our articles also lack sources. When they are "sourced" its typically by external links to 1. Their homepage, 2. the user edited portion of ANN, and/or 3. IMBD, this worries me much more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A Letter to Momo

Hey, I'm planning to expand and clean up A Letter to Momo for a potential GA assessment. The discussion is Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Good choice. I love that film. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the issue of ruby character usage on Wikipedia

As of Mozilla Firefox version 38 released this month, there is now full support for ruby characters in Firefox browsers. This means that as of present, all major browsers (Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari) now have full support for HTML ruby.

With this in mind, should ruby characters now become the standard for Chinese character (kanji) glossing on Wikipedia, or at least an acceptable option for editors? Previously the use of HTML ruby was discouraged due to the rationale of WP:ACCESSIBILITY (they wouldn't display properly for many readers), but now that this is ancient history, the issue should be revisited and rediscussed. Proponents of HTML ruby have argued in the past that having hiragana gloss displayed above individual kanji would assist readers who are not too proficient in Japanese, but have some small degree in familiarity. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion all in one place: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Revisiting the issue of ruby character usage on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed policy that is relevant to our project

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#English policy: So blindly obvious, but... There is a proposed policy that would require all articles to be typed in English. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have slightly misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is to deal with articles that have sections entirely in a non-english langauge, not anime articles with the japanese names in brackets. See WP:PNT for a few examples. Bosstopher (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I read when it says "All entries in article space need to be in English". I would support the proposal if what you say is true but it looks to me like a broad mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher is correct. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Fairy Tail English Air Dates

I brought this up before. The Fairy Tail episode lists have a problem with their English Air Dates in that most of them seem to list DVD release dates in place of the actual TV dates of broadcast on Funimation Channel. At this point, its gotten so confusing that I have no idea what premiered where since everything is unsourced. I was thinking to blank all the dates until we find an appropriate source. I'm not subscribed to Funimation Channel so if someone who is can help out by adding TV dates, that'd be great. This is an example of what random editors have done over the years. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 22:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove them and require sources for any future additions. If it is clear that the dates are simply wrong, then they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing them and adding the related Home Media section. Most of the dates are boxset releases even though the footnote says they were broadcast on Funimation Channel, which is incorrect because Funimation Channel doesn't have marathons on all new episodes like that.(at least not with Fairy Tail, some smaller series, yes) It might be the case as with Orange is the New Black where batches are released as On Demand or online episode material. As for Funimation Channel schedule, that's only good since about ~~2010~~October 2013; earlier schedules are extremely difficult to find as only a few were archived. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC) updated 01:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC) updated 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I had changed the footnote to remove the disc mentions when I realized the pattern. I'll go ahead and blank the dates from S1 to S6 if everyone's okay with that and look for some archives if they exist. S1 even has YouTube premieres. Sigh. —Kirt^Message 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Funimation Channel might be starting S5 tomorrow (May 19th). I've updated the list with a placeholder. —Kirt^Message 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we should be able to dig up premiere dates for the Funimation Channel from their weekly schedules. The episodes are labeled with a (P), but they would need to be archived to wayback so they don't get lost. Only the ones from episode 54 onwards can be found this way. On Demand / YouTube premieres should not count. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is also a pain as the retro schedule has one of those robots.txt things. If there's a way to save it without that issue, please help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work finding a standalone source! I didnt try archiving them yet though. The Retro Schedule goes all the way back to July 9, 2012 and just stops. At any rate, everything from episode 29 onwards is as good as sourced. —Kirt^Message 02:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the dates back with refs. To help preserve the citation, we're using quote to log the listing as it was presented. (e.g. quote=09:00p Fairy Tail [102] (P) -Episode 102 - Iron Soul). That way if the URL goes dead, the cite web can convert to a cite news, removing the accessdate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusing discussion

In Talk:List of Naruto characters#Dates a user has been complaining that there are no dates in the list. Now he is saying the article's sources need some basic context and I got lost. Could anybody join the discussion. I'll do the work if the article needs something. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yapool Seijin

Yapool Seijin is back adding trivial information about every mecha and/or fictional weapons system that appears in a number of mecha anime series. Mainly restoring information to Fafner in the Azure and Godannar, Yapool has basically declaring anyone removing the information under WP:IINFO or WP:WAF for lacking real-world reverence or context simply doesn't like the content. —Farix (t | c) 13:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably because monsters of the week and mecha are not cruft in mecha anime. I read they guidelines, they don't qualify, rather this is forced WP:IDLI. Yapool Seijin (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDLI does not apply here as you have made no attempt to start a discussion in the first place, nor is this matter about article deletions. You are disregarding the guidelines that DO apply to force your own opinion. This is a clear case of WP:FANCRUFT. On a side note, your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. This matter may be brought up at ANI if you continue to disruptively revert obvious consensus of the community. —Kirt^Message 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Except they are not WP:FANCRUFT, mecha and monsters do have as much real world application as episode titles, cast and crew listings, plot summaries, and even licensing rights. If you want a discussion I am willing to do it here. I remember having this talk at Talk:Godannar, but it was never resolved. Also, there is no "obvious consensus", rather WP:CENSORED. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsters of the week are definitely excessive information that has no real-world context. And listing every mech or weapon that appears in a mecha anime/manga is also equally excessive. Wikipedia articles cover the topic from a real-world perspective. However you are treating Wikipedia as a fansite by contently re-adding minute in-universe detail. In fact, almost all of your edits have been to restore this information. Both WP:IINFO and WP:WAF states that article content should focuses on the real-world perspective, however, these in-universe detail detract from that preservative. As for consensus, a total of 4 editors (including myself) have removed these details from articles. You have been the only one to restore it. It is clear that you are in the minority here. —Farix (t | c) 14:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsters of the week and mecha have their own merchandise and are plot relevant, thus they are capable of encyclopedic if treated in such a manner. I have also looked over both of your links and found no manner in which they contradict. As for real world perspective, the staff in the real world constructed them and have their names in the credits taking out the hard work by saying it is not worth mentioning? Kind of insulting, especially when, by those standards, you technically are not allowed to talk about the very titular entities. This is a combined issue of WP:IDLI and WP:CENSOR. As for four people not liking these edits I am okay with that, I'm still willing to debate for this information. I'd also like to request that you please not resort to using ad hominems by saying "almost all" my edits are just that as I have done a variety of edits since I joined here. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(conflict) The question is not if they are relevant inside the anime but if they are relevant outside of the anime. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (italics are mine) And what is accepted knowledge other than what secondary reliable sources say? And how secondary sources treat the mechas? Wikipedia is based on what sources consider relevant, not on what users consider. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a secondary source when the mecha make up the very titles of the fictional works, have merchandise to them, are the main focus of the work that is put into said works, so the better question that should be asked is where does fancruft end and censoring being? By this definition we should not have articles on the likes of Godzilla or Gamera. Why? Because they are almost entirely supported by "secondary resources" and "not acceptable" knowledge. You can make similar cases for Superman or Iron Man as their ficitonal biographies and power listings also qualify as "cruft" by these standards. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You must be kidding to compare merely mechas that appear inside a series to Godzilla, right? There is an extensive coverage on Godzilla (or the others you've mentioned) by secondary sources and tertiary sources... Show me sources that covers the mechas in detail and you can readd them. Otherwise it's cruft. It's simple. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, hope merchandise counts as a secondary source. Here are a few on Fafner, mostly covering using Mark Seins (the main of the franchise) as the example, Godannar I'll try finding a little later. (also how do you scooch these links in?)Yapool Seijin (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Plus there was a Blu-Ray booklet that covers specifics, here is a Google Images link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%95%E3%83%8A%E3%83%BC+%E3%83%96%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AC%E3%83%83%E3%83%88&hl=en&biw=1525&bih=672&site=imghp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qvZhVbCvJ8ekgwSN3IHICg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=0.9

Please, read WP:PSTS. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So does this mean merchandise and official booklets are primary sources? Both of those are real world and the former is technically a step away since another company is involved and likely has access to official materials what with licensing and all. I understand if we're talking about full articles, but this discussion is about sections of articles as opposed to the page as the whole. Yapool Seijin (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Cruft" is not a term anyone should be using - it doesn't describe a problem and it doesn't owe to a solution. Instead, the point would be to highlight excessive and disjointed content without proper context or reason for readers to comprehend and understand the material in a summary overview. Weapons on a machine or capable of being used in a fictional setting is not essential information from a summary perspective. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, however, by that same non-essential notion we should also discredit similar mentions like Eren Yaeger from Attack on Titan capable of turning into a titan, the rules of using a Death Note from Death Note, Spike Spiegal's martial arts in Cowboy Bebop, virtually every mentioned weapon or finishing move from a Super Sentai entry, the regenerative properties of the homonculi from Fullmetal Alchemist, or Sonic The Hedgehog's ability to become Super Sonic after coming into contact with the Chaos Emeralds. Those are not essential information from a summary perspective either. I will also not disagree that information should not be disjointed, that is why what I add is very bare bones when possible (name, appearance, and what it does). I see this information on Japanese Wikipedia pages all the time, those pages are usually kept organized despite the lack of being essential or not. Those parts are given their own subsections separate from plot, (human) characters, episodes, cast and crew, and other things. I also looked over the manual style link, while it does say to avoid primary source style listing it also never says they should be removed entirely. In fact it does say as the main example "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". An accurate description that is accurate and easy to understand without being a specialist. In other words something a read can understand upon looking up, that is why I keep my addition edits to bare bones (name, appearance, and basic power listing), so a casual person can read basic information and look else where if they wish to know more. Yapool Seijin (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The point was we don't list it as a separate section. Yaeger's capability is a plot point and it happens... episode list summary, character details central to a point. The Death Note rules are central to the plot because it underpins what can and cannot be done. We do not need to list all of them in exact wordings, but the foundation must be known. Spike's martial arts ability is not too key for obvious reasons. The regenerative powers of FMA's homonculi can be mentioned in a plot point when prudent. For Super Sonic and such... I believe you are being facetious because Super Sentai moves are not relate-able to the ultimate goal of several series and games. Japanese Wikipedia is often terrible in a lot of places - but out of 50+ Gundam Bibles no one can even source or get basic sourcing down for even the central Gundam units. You are fighting an uphill battle into something that people like to attack and criticize and you are using a lot of energy when the basic structure of everything around it is weak at best. Your efforts and time are best spent improving summary overviews and going deeper as needed - not the other way around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(edict conflict) If it's important to plot, try to incorporate it there in a logical way. If it doesn't fit, it probably should be removed. It's not the same case but I remember that the project had some discussion over terminology sections and Juhachi managed to handle it. Perhaps you can try to do something similar. PS: And remember that other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep something wrong. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well mecha and monsters in mecha anime are important to the plot because they usually make up at least three quarters of the plot. This is different from terminology as they are usually the main focus of these works, that is one of the main things that makes mecha stand out from other anime genres. Upon looking at the archiving, most people seem to agree that as long as the terms are kept very basic they shouldn't be a problem to the casual reader. Plus if the titular mecha of a particular title does not have at least some bit of information on it, a casual reader may find it strange (lets be honest it is in the title), it may lead to the idea that what is in the title has no significance in its own work which can be very misleading. With that said I don't see much difference between what Juhachi said and what I am debating. Keeping it simplistic to bare facts and with proper organization would keep an article both casual reader friendly and not be misleading about the work in question. Yapool Seijin (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so we are clear how was this edit so helpful and clear when it includes things like Punch - A basic punching attack. Usually aided by a piston to provide more of a kick. and such? These aren't bare facts and such - its like a list of pokemon moves and while factual, who cares if Magickarp can learn Surf? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how many people want to know if Magikarp can learn surf. Plus attacks technically are bare facts and you can combine both those sentences into one. The difference between Pokemon and monsters of the week is that there are hundreds of Pokemon while monsters of the week, depending on the series, rarely go beyond two dozen in total.

I think you've dug your self into a hole as soon as you start saying "thing of the week", which is bad when it's the first thing you say. The whole point of "thing of the week" is that they are unimportant and disposable, and in all likely hood is something a writer came up with in 5 minutes just to fit a basic quick story that was already proposed. Sometimes, such a character, device or whatever will subsequently be brought back and expanded on if it works well (common in say, Star Trek) but that doesn't mean we give importance to everything or have to list everything. If you want to do that, Wikia exists for this purpose, but Wikipedia is for real world information and summaries of important plot points. "Thing of the week" should not be mentioned outside of episode descriptions or as general real world production information i.e. Doraemon's plot summarises the devices of the week from that series but doesn't go into anything beyond basic summary of the concept and 2 brief examples. Mecha are not some special case and only the primary antagonist and protagonists usually need any mention at all. Plus history shows that listing details of all the mecha in a show is a good way to get your page deleted.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it "bad" because I say it? Is it because you don't agree with such a perspective? The conception of a monster of the week is more than just five minutes and being "disposable", these things have to be drawn, animated, take up a significant portion of screen time, and has to make every episode unique, which is serious work over the span of months; the only difference with tokusatsu monsters of the week is instead of being drawn there are costumes constructed. Both of these take up more of the budget and screen time over say dialogue moments. If you (and by you I mean everyone in this discussion) want I have no problem placing MOTW info in episode descriptions since that would be appropriate and kept distant for the more "important" aspects. As for listing mecha details, why is it a good way for page deletion? Why not delete pages for the Sub-Mariner, or xenomorphs, or T-800s or RoboCop (character)? It is somewhat silly. Yapool Seijin (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yapool, you are equating extremely minor plot details with highly notable fictional elements. Not all plot elements are equal. Sub-Mariner, Xenomorphs, T-800s, and RoboCop are not only notable but have real-world relevance and perspectives. Otherwise, they wouldn't have articles of their own. What you want to insert into articles, however, are extremely trivial details that don't add anything. If they are worth mentioning at all in an article, it is inside of a plot summary of the series or the episode summary in which they make their only appearance. —Farix (t | c) 15:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Having to draw and animate something doesn't make it important, it's work that is being done anyway, the only difference is drawing thing A instead of thing B. Granted Tokusatsu costumes have to be made but that doesn't automatically make that costume or character important or notable. Crucially the argument that should take place here doesn't include Tokusatsu as we don't cover it, therefore your points should stick to impact on anime and manga articles. Your comparison to clearly notable characters is just bizarre, Sub mariner is a character developed over many decades across several major titles with vast amounts of real world notability through reliable expert sources. Your other characters names are also clearly notable as key antagonists and protagonists in Hollywood franchises so again, not making much sense to compare these at all. And yes, articles that go into excessive detail about trivial aspects are either deleted, redirected or if part of a larger article, removed or reduced. This is not only common practice proven through AFD, but it is also consistent with What Wikipedia is, stands for and it's policies and guidelines regarding content, so you should consider if you want to be co-operative or make a rod for your own back.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't just the MOTW I am debating for, it is also the titular mecha who do have real world relevance too (IE toys, models, games, books, and in rare cases like Mazginer Z (which was deleted for some reason) historical influences on a genre or industry). In addition they are central to the plot to the point that usually those details are necessary. I have to disagree on the "don't add anything" bit, it would give the articles depth and proper representation of the works. Mecha is not like most genres, the otherwise superficial details are almost always the main focus, throwing away said focus is incredibly misleading to what the works are about. In fact, removing said elements usually makes the articles, especially for older anime, rather short. That is like having the Pacific Rim article have no mention of the names of the kaiju that attack or the jaegers that fight them, they are too central to the focus to not have details on and they are usually defined by what they are capable of. Remember, I said BOTH monsters of the week AND the mecha characters used, not just one, but both. That seems to be something the last few replies might not have picked up on. (seriously, why was the article on the Mazinger Z (mecha) deleted again if we're pulling the notability card? That thing's influence is quite widespread.) Yapool Seijin (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yapool - Wikipedia is not perfect and it has a bunch of complete and utter fools that muck up topics and delete important things because they are so narrow-minded, self-centered and downright of such repugnant characters that they want to "purge" information they personally find to be unimportant. We've had a couple of them and they group together in ignorance to delete critical information because of "notability". When anyone goes complaining about "notability" with 20+ sources in an article from across decades - they are trolls and should be educated or banned from Wikipedia. However, adding "move lists" and such to very sparse and undeveloped and nearly unsourced articles contributes to visual bloat and a lack of context. Pikachu and others do not have move lists, those are more relevant for those playing the games, watching the show and such. Wikipedia is the overview of five "W"s and not a collection of data on attack lists or appearances. There is a distinction between your additions and the content required - but neither have any relevance to the Mazinger Z problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it funny that you try to use Pacific Rim as an example. Pacific Rim doesn't have a list of every Jaeger or Kaiju that appears in the film. It only mentions two specific Jaegers in the plot section. You, on the other hand, want to list every little mecha or MotD that appears in a television series. If you don't see the difference, then perhaps you need to step away. Your fandom is clouding your judgment of what Wikipedia's purpose is.

As for your complaining about the deletion of Mazinger Z (mecha), well there was never an article on it in the first place. What was removed from the Mazinger Z article was a list of attacks and weapons,[6] the very thing that Chris already explained as being trivial. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually there was a Mazinger (mecha page), I even remember taking the information right before it was deleted and placing it in a pastebin. As for everything else, I am unfortunately backed into a corner. I wish I had a comment to counter, but I don't. I really thought I was doing something useful, but it no longer seems like that. Sorry folks. (insert shameful walk here) Yapool Seijin (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

- Do not think of it like that, think instead of prioritizing development history and a broad overview of materials instead of in-universe details. Until this is done, it makes no sense to proceed to in universe minutiae. Wikipedia's coverage of popular culture, contrary to popular belief, is actually rather poor. It takes a dedicated curator and scholar to produce a veritable bevy of great content articles, but the anime and manga section has many disadvantages that make contributions more difficult than normal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Frieza listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Frieza to be moved to Freeza. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TIme to officially close Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review?

Especially among newer editors, it doesn't seem to be well-known that we actually have our own peer-review page. Or at least we had: it hasn't been edited since 2011! Since it hasn't been used in more than four years, should it be time to put the page out of its misery, and (belatedly) mark the page as historical/inactive? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to do peer reviews though here? I think it could be a useful tool. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: We are pretty short on hands, plus doing our peer-reviews at the usual place (meaning WP:PEER) means even non-WikiProject members are encouraged to give their comments. Plus, from the looks of things, even if we did have peer reviews on the page currently under consideration, they wouldn't get much discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark it as historical then and when/if we can get more editors to our project maybe it can be looked at down the road. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder if we should consider "rebooting" our project pages and attempt to get more involvement from editors who edit within our scope. I probably spend more time on project talk and AFD than actual editing at the moment (I intend to get back to editing soon), so why not get more involvement from those actually contributing. It doesn't necessarily affect the Peer Review page directly but it's not the only project page with a lack of involvement that was previously active.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see this as a good idea too, there are pages I would be apt to keep as I feel they could be useful if we had the editors to work on them, but others can be mothballed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, a project Peer Review would be a good way to centralise driven improvements to pages, especially for those who are new to substantial rewrites of pages , but you need to draw attention to it. We should also consider revisiting the idea of project drives on specific articles, a lot of work is general and doesn't need specific knowledge of a series.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Topic workshop? I would love to see this up and running again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, thats simply too much to expect. There used to be a weekly/fortnightly/monthly collab (unsure which tbh), which is a lot more manageable than a series of related articles. It has been suggested a number of times but the actual process hasn't happened yet. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge WP:HENTAI into this project as a taskforce

Consensus has been established that WP:HENTAI is to be merged into a task force of WP:ANIME. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

A long time ago, on a Wikipedia not so far away, I made a proposal to absorb the now inactive WP:HENTAI into this project. This was based on the fact that this project has absorbed WikiProjects that have overlapping scopes before as in WP:GUNDAM, WP:DIGIMON and WP:DBZ. Also, seeing how WP:HENTAI didn't go anywhere in the 2 years since it was created, and one of the only two members listed at WP:HENTAI#Editor projects are now inactive as of a year ago, I see little reason to justify the existence or having a separate project for hentai-related topics when 99% of them already fall under the scope of this project.--十八 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I say merge it as a taskforce like all the others in the past since it has basically become almost defunct. —Kirt^Message 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that it really needs a task force, let alone an entire project. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support a taskforce, though over articles need the attention just as much as the Hentai related ones do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support, perhaps as a collaboration with WikiProject Pornography. A WikiProject with two members? By comparison, even the now-merged Sailor Moon WikiProject, even at its lowest point, had around seven members. Since the discussion two years ago (which I monitored but did not participate it), activity has been almost zilch. It's time to put this failed WikiProject out of its misery. Post-script: note that the WikiProject's other member, ChrisGualtieri, has been semi-inactive for the past two months. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I'm listing this discussion as an RfC in order to gain a wider hearing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Looking at the page it's quite obvious that the project is pretty much all but dead. If the project ever becomes active again it can always be spun out, but that seems to be unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support - Basically, it all comes down to this: the project is almost extinct. Therefore, as with the Sailor Moon project, a merger would be necessary for this particular project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Per my reasoning above. —Kirt^Message 09:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support RFC is not needed for this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:16, 22 May 2015 (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.

Between two pictures RFC

Something simple at Talk:No Game No Life#English cover vs Japanese cover. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 17:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed. It is now an argument whether the Japanese or the English covers for the light novel should be used. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Battlestars: Return of Convoy

I have been wondering about this for awhile now, is this notable or can I send it to AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 Go ahead. You'll discover if it is or not then (though you should look for sources before AfDing some thing). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have found mostly forum posts, definitely not WP:RS but seeing this is a popular franchise I don't expect this would go unopposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But what exactly is it? "the penultimate part of the Japanese Transformers continuity"? So this means you can merge it somewhere? It would be easier, no? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ox Tales

It's extremely likely that this page will go up for AfD soon. A related page on the comic strip was deleted a few years back, so it's likely that this will also be deleted. It's possible that sourcing could exist in Japanese, so I was looking here for help finding sources. I can run a quick check with Google Translate, but the anime predates the Internet and as such the sourcing is likely going to require searching by someone who is fluent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia keeps a single article for the comic strip and the TV series, maybe we could do this too. As for sources, there I've found a source about the re-releasing of the comic. It's from Strip Turnhout, apparently an important Belgian festival. An Italian publisher also released it in 2014: [7], [8] (not sure these are RS, but it the result of this searching). For the TV series, it will indeed probably require Japanese sources... The second source here announces its debut in 88. I couldn't find any other good source or information, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just in case, @Tokyogirl79: Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ani - Imo

I anyone following this series? It is quite good of you can put certain themes behind. Anyways, I could use some help getting some more reviews and a spellcheck if anyone is up for it. Thanks! =3 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found this two reviews ([9], [10]). However, I don't know if these are RS. Manga Bookshelf is listed at WP:A&M/RS but are its "subsites" reliable too? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the first one (suitablefortreatment) I had seen before used for other manga as well but never knew if it was RS or not, the other is new to me. Maybe someone could step in and make the call here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are about 6 bloggers that contribute regularly to Manga Bookshelf HERE so they have some choice of who they promote. They also have some columnists, some of whom are RS'ed individually. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So in other words it is situational? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if nobody objects I will include the reviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The first review is by Sean Gaffney and the second by Ash Brown, if to be listed as part of the main staff is to be reliable, I guess that's fine, no? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I included one of the reviews seeing they are both by the same source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure

I just want to make sure people agree with this before I spend the time to correct it. At some point Ryulong went to each part of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and added two/three sets of chapter titles; the ones used in the WSJ serialization, the ones used in the original tankōbon, and the ones used in a 2002 tankōbon re-release. Stardust_Crusaders#Chapters is the one with three, the others have two, but where as Phantom_Blood#Chapters has the new tankōbon in separate boxes after the old, Vento_Aureo#Chapters has the tankōbon titles in the same boxes as the WSJ ones. So basically its not uniform and looks like shit. Even tho different titles were used we should only list the original tankōbon's right? Xfansd (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no right answer here. Someone might bite you for it in the future. If it were me, I'd do something crazy like create a list of chapter titles table, then show how the chapters are encapsulated. I did do something like that before List of Maison Ikkoku chapters, but you'll have to forgo the chapter list/summaries section to something like a chapter table for various reasons. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox animanga‎/Game

An editor has been insistent in adding several new fields into the {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}} sub-component, however, they have refused to discussion the matter here, instead taking it to WT:VG. Their rational behind adding these fields is that they exist in {{Infobox video game}} and therefore must also be in {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}}. The fields that they have included are director, video game producer, game designer, game programmer, game artist, writer, and music composer. My view was that these fields are unimportant and just add bloat to the entire infobox. They have since reduced the new fields to director, producer, and music composer, however, I still don't see the relevance of these fields in the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious question but are the two template alike enough for a merge? If the fields are unimportant I agree they shouldn't be used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

They are not similar enough. {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}} was designed to fit into {{Infobox animanga‎}}, the other one was not. As for the changes, I don't see a problem with them. Having the two include similar information is a good thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

ComiXology.com

Hey, guys, I've brought Comixology.com (along with a bunch of other sources) for analysis before here. I think I've exaggerated trying to bring too many sources for discussion at once... and probably we should only focus on having anime/manga-only sources at WP:A&M/RS (I mean, NYT is reliable but we don't need to add it there...). So, I've brought this one first because it should be the most clearly reliable among them. With Jason Thompson, Shaenon K. Garrity (added recently to the list), and The Comics Journal editors (Kristy Valenti, Joe McCulloch, Tucker Stone) as contributors, I'd say its reliability is pretty clear. Also, I've already added it to a GA article (Shaman King) and I would like to have it ratified by the community to do not have any potential problem. Also, WP:A&M/RS is a good page for newcomers to know where to look for sources (at least, it helped me sometime ago) and I'd like to keep it in a good-shape. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a section on the site that you're wanting to state is RS? It looks like a retail site now to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, hm, good question; their reviews and analysis are under their own column (e.g. "Manga Salad" for Thompson, "All the Comics in the World" for Garrity, etc). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say the retail information (for primaries), the Columns and Podcasts would be okay for RS. The Reviews are mostly user-generated. The Blog section looks like a bunch of random tumblr pictures, which doesn't have much useful information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus! My main concern are the columns as most of the information I want comes from there. User-generated reviews and blogs by non-RS people are definitely not RS. Anyone else wants to give an input? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghibli Museum sourcing issue

Looking at google books [11] I cant find the reference for "Miyazaki & Kitazawa" (2006) that is being used in the article. Any suggestions? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Ghibli Museum guidebook, of which there are several editions by year.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know who it is by or what I can use for more reference info? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I was able to rescue the dead links but it would be nice if I could address the duplication of that one source which is overcited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I linked ~~it to that source, so it's all good.~~ the Miyazaki & Kitazawa one, but yeah the main website and its articles are a big mess AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is all I need thanks. I will just add one source link for Miyazaki & Kitazawa. Yeah there is maybe one source that is doubled for the performances but the links date quickly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Add your areas of strength

I am not sure everyone is aware, but we have this page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yellow pages, I added myself as I have found im okay with reference cleanup where I can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this located on the main page anywhere? First time I've heard of it and it seems very useful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is very useful, its in our project's infobox, you can also add the magazines you own (if any) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines and see who owns what. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Help needed regarding Tenchi Muyo

An editor has threatened to stub the Tenchi Muyo article. I believe that this could be very harmful for an already fragile franchise that I love dearly, so I would very much appreciate help to keep the page. Thank you for any assistance. David A (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to do anything. I asked a question. The responses thus far, bar one, are not encouraging. As I said in my comment, Wikipedia is not a fansite; I really could care less whether it is a "fragile franchise" that you "love dearly so". It is either fixable or it is not, and if it is not then it probably should in fact be deleted after a reasonable period of time has passed. I've got a feeling that the same problem exists on a pretty wide scale for articles in which this project has an interest.

If people do not know how to edit (which seemed to be one of the responses) then just list the sources (on the article talk page if need be) and ask for help. Then watch the helper(s) and learn. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up this topic again, but would anybody here be willing to rework the main Tenchi Muyo page into a more acceptable higher level of quality? If am kept very busy managing a wiki with 600000 visits a month, and am not good at writing high standard encyclopaedic articles. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

no, I am now refusing to contribute to these articles on principle. If someone wants help or assistance I am usually happy to help when I can. However after making a fuss about proposals to remove the problematic content, You have repeatedly asked other people to do the work and keep making excuses for you not being able to help. This project is not here to do the work you can't be bothered to do. I could forgive the need for help in making the content better as that is understandable but passing the work off and talking about comitments to your other wiki just annoys me. We already lack the manpower to improve bigger and more important articles to quality status and this is not a charity. If you won't work on the articles. How can you expect other people to do it?SephyTheThird (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SephyTheThird, have you ever heard of the expression cutting off the nose to spite the face? You are basically saying that you are upset that David A cares more about some other wiki than he does about Wikipedia, and as such you going to leave Wikipedia articles in a poor state rather than fixing them. That is just utterly nonsensical. If you are interested in these articles and think they should be improved, then you shouldn't give a damn that someone else is more interested in doing other things. While perhaps David A shouldn't keep complaining about the article if he can't work on it himself, his reasons for not working on the article seem completely reasonable to me. No one is under an obligation to work on Wikipedia, and I just can't understand why you would look down on someone because they are more interested in doing other things than editing articles here. People should spend their free time doing things that interest them, and just because you might like editing Wikipedia doesn't mean anyone else should have to do it (even if they like reading the articles . . . I'm sure there are tons of people who read Wikipedia but aren't interested in editing). Personally I think it was good of David A to point out here that the article was in a bad state even if he doesn't want to work on it himself. Calathan (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's back up for a moment. I originally offered to help with the article, at the very least I could provide scans and a few odd bits of info from common sources. However I think you've picked up on the wrong part of my complaint, how people spend their time is indeed their business. Personally my editing time is affected by the time I'm spending on other activities. I can understand people being busy. What annoys me is that having brought it to our attention we are now being expect D to do the work rather than help, and you know exactly how much this project is struggling already without being expected to fix articles for other people. This is not a quick clean up, this is many hours of serious work involved. Yes the mention of he other wiki stopping them from helping annoyed me, but it's not even the crux of he matter. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people who want to save article get involved themselves and I think it's unreasonable to expect us to do the work for them. That's the issue. I'm not going to spend my time fixing up a page for someone else when I don't have the time to fix up my own projects (although I picked one of the largest topics going). id be very surprised if I was in the minority here.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want you can always help me with article cleanup, I feel that if we get a majority of small cleanup issues resolved then fixing up the articles wont seem so overwhelming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I did take a look at it a few days ago but it's the sort of article where I would rather start from scratch than clean up. it really needs an "expert" on the subject thanks to all of the various spin offs and such. I have no knowledge of the details of the series at all.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if I have brought offense, but managing a wiki demands far lesser standards than Wikipedia does, and in addition, it is an extremely rowdy crowd to manage. I am genuinely not good at all at writing encyclopaedic, rather than fandom, standard articles, and do not know which sources that are deemed notable/acceptable. Even if you do not wish to rewrite it, help to find useful sources would be appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

as I've said before, I've got no problem helping people, whatever their ability. The key word is help. If that means education than I'm ok with that. That's how I started - I wanted to improve an article but needed guidance, and I got that article to GA. I'm happy to teach as we go along. Sources I'm happy to give, but only if someone uses them. I'm not scanning things just for someones collection. Cleaning up the writing, we can do as we go and you can learn from it as we go. All I'm asking is that you get involved as much as possible, then I'm happy to help when I can. It's a simple and fair way to do things.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SephyTheThird, you are fine with saying that what you want to do here is find people who are interested in learning to edit Wikipedia better and then helping those people. There is no problem to with you only helping when others are willing to do a lot of work too. What I took objection to is your suggestion that David A did something wrong by not being one of the people you are looking for. Not everyone has the time or inclination to put a lot of work into Wikipedia. Those people should feel welcome to post comments and suggestions, and to make small edits, even if they don't have time to do major cleanup or write whole articles. We should be encouraging people to contribute where and how they can, without any expectation that they will put a lot of work into Wikipedia. I see your reply to David A, which implied that he was doing something wrong and that we should avoid helping him "out of principle", as quite harmful to Wikipedia. David A has made a couple small edits to the article, and Knowledgekid87 was perhaps alerted that the article needed work by David A's posts. That seems like a great contribution from David A to me, and if he doesn't have time to do more, or just would rather do other things, he should feel good that he helped with the article, and not be berated for not wanting to be a more hardcore Wikipedia editor. Calathan (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I seem to remember that a long time ago somebody showed me a list of acceptable notable sources for anime articles in Wikipedia. If somebody could link to that particular page it would be helpful, if I find the time and energy to try to improve the article. Thank you. I just have bureaucrat duties to take care of elsewhere as well, and I am going through a period of extreme exhaustion for the time being, so all of this also popped up at an inconvenient time. David A (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. I hope you feel better soon. :) Are you talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the page that I was looking for. Thank you. David A (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nyan Koi!

All right. I'm thinking about expanding Nyan Koi! to at least a B-Class article. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If we could get some more reviews to show notability it would be great. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing

I plan on turning Category:Aurora Publishing into a template. My reasoning behind it is that a large portion of Aurora's articles are notable enough for inclusion as they have in depth reviews but remain orphaned articles. Aurora chose to publish mostly one shots or short manga series, as a result most of the authors/illustrators of these manga are not notable enough for articles of their own. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Idea B Another thing I could do is make: List of manga published by Aurora and merge all of the stubs into a well sourced list article. Any thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A list would be good as you can give more details that a template cannot provide. But since the main article is too short you can handle it into something like Seven Seas Entertainment#Publications. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That works too, okay I will just go with that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Closed naming

Hi guys! As an FYI I found that the Singapore manga release of Detective Conan by Shogakukan Asia uses the original title and character names (based on the preview on their website). I don't yet plan to do an RM since I don't know where the Singapore manga release is distributed.

If it's only distributed in Singapore and Malaysia I don't plan to do an RM unless there is consensus in this thread to do so.
If it's imported into India (or Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) or the Philippines or Australia and New Zealand I would like to do an RM

See: Talk:Case_Closed#2015_Break - Until Shogakukan Asia's adaptation (and if there are any Singapore adaptations of the anime, please let me know!) all English versions (released in North America and the United Kingdom) used the Case Closed name and most of the dub names (some VIZ dub names differed from others). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The official Shogakukan Asia page says the books are distributed in: Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand, and Indonesia. From my understanding all of the products are in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Viz media one is still more prominent and came first. Shogakukan Asia was formed in 2013.[12] Both Viz and Shogakukan Asia are tied to Shogakukan anyway. [13] Here is the distribution network which focuses on Southeast Asia: [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also a Singapore anime dub.. I would like to find more sourced info about it, but I'm having some trouble. :( - Supposedly the company that dubbed it is Voiceovers Unlimited Pte Ltd WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Oh you mean the Animax dub of Detective Conan/Case Closed? You'd be hard-pressed to find info on said dubs: though if I recall correctly, the studio which did most of Animax Asia's dubs was from Hong Kong, not Singapore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice there was content at http://www.animax-asia.com/programs/detective-conan but it doesn't seem to be archived at the Internet Archive... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: There's a video on YouTube from "Voiceovers Unlimited" (Account name) which includes the ending credits: In the video it says the company is Voiceovers Unlimited Pte Ltd - There must be a place where this information is published... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, I have found no information saying that either the anime nor the manga using the original title or character names is distributed as such in India or Australia/NZ. Therefore I am not asking for an RM at this time. However I would like to have the acknowledgement that the Southeast Asian version is known as Detective Conan in the article lead. Even though it is a minority, as per WP:LEAD the lead must summarize the whole article, and as per WP:Systemic Bias we should not shortchange our Filipino, Singaporean, and Malaysian readers (also those in Brunei and English speakers in Indonesia and Thailand) by ignoring/shortchanging their version of the series. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked a question at the "Systemic Bias" WikiProject regarding the article lead: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Case_Closed_.28Detective_Conan.29_and_titles_in_various_English-speaking_countries WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See the proposed lead discussion here: Talk:Case_Closed#Proposed_lead WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Anons adding WP: Fancruft to Inuyasha

The article Inuyasha (character) has been edited multiple times by anons. When I reverted the edits and left a warning in their talk page a user named User talk:Sbrady538 readded all the fancruft the anons gave. Could this be a suckpoppet? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I requested protection for the page. Given the IP's behavior it shouldn't be a problem. If the edits persist afterwards by a suspected sock puppet then we could take further action. We'll have to wait and see for now. More eyes on the page would be helpful. —Kirt^Message 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese episode list templates merger

With regards to the above linked discussion about the proposed merging of {{Episode list}}, {{Japanese episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list multi-part}}. Are we making these sorts of changes now? Frankly, our Project just has a ridiculous amount of Japanese Episode lists to be able to endorse such a grand merger. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 23:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can undo it. Nothing's been officialized as far as I know. If the merge does go through, a bot will do the replacement. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Very premature and I've undid both instances. There is absolutely no reason to switch {{Japanese episode list}} with {{Episode list}} at this time. In the event the two templates are merger, which does seem will happen with the current comments, the parameters will remain and the merger will be as seamless as possible for both. —Farix (t | c) 23:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opposed the merger, I see no gain in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Anime Expo

So it's to the point that we need more eyes on the Anime Expo article. Editor will simply not cite or update sources, even primary sources, to prove where they got the information for 2015 guest updates. Every effort to reach out including Talk Page has failed, will simply re-add the information I removed still uncited. Esw01407 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a 3RR tag to the editor's talkpage [15], I also note the lack of edit summaries in addition to refusal of the use of the talk-page. If this keeps up I would recommend going to WP:ANI per WP:CIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Hi. Are scifi-universe.com and krinein.fr reliable sources? --Cattus ^talk 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, what are their credentials? Their staff members are recognized among the industry? They are cited by other reliable sources? This stuff, you know. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak French but you could try getting a more broad opinion over at WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Thanks for both of your comments.--Cattus ^talk 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to ask KrebMarkt (talk · contribs) about the French source. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly Kreb hasn't been here since October 2013. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello long time not see you all ;)

If you want to use those sources in manga / anime related articles then my opinion is that both of them miss the mark as Reliable Source.

First scifi-universe.com is not focused in manga / anime but rather in sci-fi. This alone isn't an issue however their last staff review of a manga is 2 years old (cf http://www.scifi-universe.com/critiques/recentes/manga) and the reviewing staff doesn't assess why their reviews matter when it's about manga.

Bottom line there are better sources to asses facts related to manga. There staff reviews can't be given much weight => not to be used to pass WP:BK #1

Second krinein.fr A manga oriented website. It has tenure, recents staff reviews. However you notice by browsing others sections of the website that there no news article since december 2014 (cf http://manga.krinein.fr/access/actualites/), the same for dossier section (http://manga.krinein.fr/access/dossiers/). The manga review section is solely done by one reviewer since at least mid-2013. This look like much a semi-pro website that lack manpower to keep all its parts active. This website can't be RS based on those facts.

If possible you should use better Frenchs websites like manga-news for Reliable Source.

I must very rusted to write this short paragraph in one hour of time :(

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and glad to see ya again! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you around again. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Twitter questions as original research

I've noticed a trend of English voice actors being asked about their voice roles in recent anime series on Twitter and their responses being included on Wikipedia. I have pinged the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard about whether this practices constitutes original research or not. Topic is located at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Asking questions on Twitter. There may also be relating WP:BLP issues do to the low-quality of Twitter. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't such tweets be used as primary sources, though? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

List of manga magazines

I just did a major overhaul of the manga magazines published in Japan on this list. Here is my proposal:

1. Get rid of all the magazines listed that don't have articles (Or redirect the ones that are similar (Be x Boy and Be x Boy Gold for example) and make the criteria like it is at List of anime conventions.

2. Split off the magazines published outside of Japan into a separate article, this will ease up some space and make it so the article isn't WP:TOOLONG.

Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:TOOLONG does not apply to stand alone lists. So the main question is, do we want List of manga magazines to be a comprehensive list or a navigational list (WP:CSC)? For the former, not every entry on the list needs to be notable. And since I don't foresee to many "fly-by-night" magazines cropping up, I think following WP:CSC#3 is the way to go. The main issue is sourcing, especially relating to the magazines' demographics. I'm already having to deal with the ever-recurring demographic dispute relating to Champion Red. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess a list is a good way to show the existency of some less-known magazines so I oppose removing the redlinks. Also, WP:CSC: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." CSC#3 is probably even a better option and would include redlinks too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No red-links aren't discouraged but we have to keep in mind WP:N, red-links if I read WP:RED right are meant not to just sit on a page for an indefinite amount of time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Red links do not have a "time" and you should see a lot of red links when filling out and adding content to different sections because an undeveloped topic needs to be expanded. Something like Animedia (magazine) which has been around for over 30 years doesn't even have an article. Numerous English magazines aren't even on the list - which is strange to me, and most of the articles on even major early ones like Protoculture Addicts are very poorly developed. And stop removing links and calling stuff non-notable - gosh! You know nothing about some of these. Put them back. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The red links can stay then for magazines that have been around awhile, it would just be nice to have a notability criteria is all. There are many magazines out there but just because they exist doesn't mean they have to or should be included per WP:PROMOTION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN lies with you, I removed magazines that had no sources to them, if you can prove their notability then go ahead and re-add them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't read or understand policy even when it has been explained to you. It is appropriate to list items of a defined category and your objection under "PROMOTION" shows just how little you understand. You have been here long enough to know that list items are not subject to notability guidelines for standalone articles and this is a core WP:N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh then why the criteria over at List of anime conventions? Manga magazines would be under WP:LISTCOMPANY's scope. Who distributes the magazines? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You still do not understand WP:N and now you are saying "this page is different" to distract from the point. I don't want excuses - I want you to read N again and tell me how it applies. Anime Conventions is another page - that can come later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to drop the red links issue for now, I have left some in the articles for magazines that I found sourcing for. Spending three days sourcing over 120 entries is tedious work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tower of God

I added this project's template to the talk page Talk:Tower of God of the article Tower of God. It was removed by 206.41.25.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on the grounds that "Korean = not manga". I disagree with that assessment. Nationalism/racism should not dictate the scope of this project. Tower of God is stylistically indistinguishable from other manga. The only difference is the nationality of the author (who is Korean) and the fact that it is issued in a scroll-weblog rather than books or magazines. In my opinion, Tower of God is better than 90% of the manga out there. So this project should cover it. And it is a drama with a complex and lengthy plot putting it into the same category as works like One-piece, Naruto, Fairy-Tail, Bleach, InuYasha, etc.. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The definition of manga is "comics created in Japan", I didn't make up the definition but we have to follow reliable sources on this one, manhwa is considered manga-influenced comics as are western based manga such as Peach Fuzz. Please also have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Project scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Even accepting the RS's definition of "manga" as excluding manhwa does not mean that we cannot include manhwa within the scope of this project. I am asking that the exclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#What topics we do not cover be changed.

I understand and agree that there are many cartoons which are dissimilar to manga and should not be included in the scope. This is true of almost all American cartoons. But it is also true of some Japanese cartoons. I think that the important distinction is not a matter of nationality, but a subtle aspect of the style of the cartoon. Part of it is that the cartoon should have artistic integrity which usually requires that the story be under the control of one person, not a committee. However, there is more to it than that. Unfortunately, I cannot describe it precisely at this time. Another part is having a serious and coherent plot that develops, i.e. it should be a drama rather than a pure comedy. Avoiding the sickening (Disney-like) altruist moralizing is another aspect. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is so difficult to accept about the anime and manga project only covering anime and manga (and other items which are directly related). It's not a question of "nationalism or racism" (I strongly object to you making it about racism, and believe this makes your position very shaky), it's a question about what things are. Mannwha might be similar or the Korean equivalent, but it is not Manga. We don't cover it for the same reason we don't include other non-Japanese "manga". As for your comments on what is "better", thats not relevant and makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. There is absolutely no reason for us to change the scope of the project to include Manwha and every reason not to do it. If you want Manwha included in a project, I suggest you look to see if one exists and if not, consider creating one rather than try to get us to include it here. It would make no sense at all for this project to get involved, and it is already covered by WP:Comics, so it's not lacking a project. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

JRSpriggs, the scope of this project is very clearly set to covering animation and comics from Japan and all related sub-topics. Tower of God is a Korean comic and thus outside of this project's scope. Neither anime nor manga are art styles, despite this being a common misperception, and there are a wide variety of styles among anime and manga artist. Just because someone uses art styles that are common among Japanese artists doesn't mean that their works becomes Japanese art. —Farix (t | c) 10:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Okazu dead link repair complete, Akita Shoten links being worked on

The dead links originally discussed here have been fixed by HasteurBot (see here and here).

The dead links for the Akita Shoten site are on the docket to be fixed within the next couple days. See here and here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this, looks like Akita Shoten did a website update. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there has been an editor going around deleting or disabeling Akita Shoten links on the bases that there was a "bad ISBN" in the url. —Farix (t | c) 22:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Eeesh no, not a bad ISBN at all just a reorganized website. Well this looks like it is being worked on, let me know if you need any help (Link to the editor's contribs?). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

HasteurBot. The edits start near the bottom of this page and go back from there for the okazu site. I don't think the akitashoten site work has begun yet. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lists of Roles for Voice Actors

I was looking through a few voice actor/actress entries and noticed that most lists are done as just a heading + entries, but I saw a couple that were in "tables" and was wondering what the current preferred format is or if it even matters. Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The main thing is that the filmography is sourced and accurate. Whether it's a table or a list is not as critical, although I've found it very useful to use tables when the actor has voiced a ton of roles that have been sourced with resumes as with Steve Blum and Wendee Lee, and that shows the years in which they worked on the project. See WP:FILMOGRAPHY and MOS:ANIME#People AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the lists are largely down to i) a lack of knowledge or ii)lack of effort. Most voice actor articles under the project scope are to be honest, not very good and tend to use lists. A proper article that has been developed properly would usually use a table. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There's not really much a concern on whether tables or lists should be used. The biggest problem facing voice actor articles is a lack of sourcing for said roles. Due to WP:BLP (which I'm somewhat against, since in practice in my opinion it can be detrimental to articles of non-Western people, but that's another story), sourcing standards are very strict, but unfortunately these are often not met, mainly because it can be hard to find reliable sources confirming a role, particularly if the role is supporting or minor. Resources like Hitoshi Doi's website can only go so far. A possible solution could be to only require sourcing for a role in a voice actor article if the said role is not mentioned in the media's article, although such a suggestion would first have to go up for discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you solve a problem like {{BLP sources}} and {{BLP unsourced}}?

It's a sad fact that many of our articles on voice actors are under-sourced. Not a few have a bright orange BLP sources or BLP unsourced template on top. While the obvious solution is to simply provide reliable sources for roles, this is not always possible, particularly for supporting or minor roles, or for anime which don't have websites (i.e. pre-2000 anime, for the most part). Websites like Hitoshi Doi's can only go so far (and we can't use ANN's encyclopedia because it is user-edited). So how can we improve said articles so that the said templates can be removed? And following from this, I think it's high time that we have an improvement drive for voice actor articles. I've raised this issue a number of times, but responses were relatively few, perhaps due to the overall lack of users in the WikiProject. But the feeling has bothered me so long: even articles of popular voice actors like Tomokazu Seki and Mamiko Noto have maintenance tags. These are established voice actors, and our edits are not giving them justice. It's high time we do something about this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried throwing in a process over at WP:ANIME/BIO on how to get the blanket tag off. My preference would be to get rid of the minor role until it can be sourced. A major role that should be easy to source from watching the appropriate episode can be tagged with a CN. I'd love to get some improvement drive going or at least a monthly top five hit list of bio articles whose filmographies can be improved. The entries listed at WP:ANIME/BIO for the biography section are a really old set that no one is working on as far as I know; it's been stagnant for years. The lists can also be removed or commented out without much loss as many of them are copies of ANN or IMDb. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should do a mass AfD, we aren't talking about a few weeks or so we are talking about articles that have been sitting around for YEARS. This isn't good, it could mean potential WP:HARM done to people and we don't want that. I know some may be resentful of putting up what seems like a notable person up for AfD but sources like imdb, and the encyclopedia portion are in a lot of cases being passed off as the only adequate sources. Imdb (in most cases I have seen) and ANN (Encyclopdia) are both user edited, this is a real problem we have here and I just don't see any other solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is NOT cleanup. You know this. I'm tired of seeing uninformed people who cannot even read the language in a position to make content decisions. I doubt anyone even has the X Bibles for doing some of the larger ones properly. It is like how people complained about the Ultimania's for Final Fantasy, since they cannot read it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So how many more years do you propose the articles sit around with potential user edited info added to them? It is better to redirect the articles then and have someone invent the time into them later than having them give our readers inaccurate info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not going to solve the problem. As ChrisGualtieri mentioned above, AfD is not cleanup. And since you'd be putting up notable people for deletion, such AfDs would be kept anyway, potentially even in a snowy way. It would better if the people here would work together to work on these articles and improve them, instead of outright deleting them or redirecting them. And speaking of redirecting, redirect where? To the agency's Wikipedia entry? To a particular show? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To their most notable work, as for the AfD it would be on a case by case basis. There are over 500 BLP articles with issues, its a huge pool. I looked at a few for example and saw that there were no sources in English or Japanese that verified the roles users had placed on ANN or Imdb, if you weed out those roles you are left with the question if the person really passes WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an important policy, if these were anime/manga series articles I would be approaching this a different way. The fact is Naruto is that we have too many articles/issues and not enough editors. Even if we were to delete 50 articles it would put a small dent in what we have. My proposal now is to do redirects then until the resources become free, its not laziness there are a lot of other issues that persist in the project as it is such as articles lacking notability, and those needing more sources that aren't BLP related. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Go through them one by one and remember that credits to the works count as reliable sources. I doubt you will find many errors in the listings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You can also use Hitoshi Doi's Seiyuu Database as it's been considered a reliable source by many in the industry for about 20 years or so. That should have a large number of the roles in it. It gets updated fairly regularly, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

New source found

This book is in Japanese but its called "TV Talent Author encyclopedia", great for biographies if someone can translate it. [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this may be more focused on random variety show performers (essentially what " Japanese Talent" tends to be) than voice actors. Arguably there is some cross over, but it may not be as useful as it seems. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If it has biographies for Kōichi Yamadera and Shoko Nakagawa it could prove useful at least for those articles, since they're currently a bit of a mess (Nakagawa's article in particular). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I saw, thanks for linking those. The book is being used as a WP:RS on the Japanese wiki for biographies involving actors/actresses in the anime/manga field. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying its not useful, just try not to rely on it. Shokotan is an all round "talent" so I expect her to have coverage, most anime voice actors tend to stay outside the general "talent" field.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For Shoko Nakagawa better starting from the singer side => Oricon Profile |Singles Rank || Albumg rank. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding large number of category names

Please come participate. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion required at Translation of Japanese title

Could we get some more community input over at the linked page. The discussion is based on the fact that if one (or more?) users think an Official Title is a mistranslation of Japanese text, then the actual translation holds more priority over the Official and Common Titles. —Kirt^Message 12:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Responded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Need birth year for voice actors help (BTVA)

I've been having conflict with an IP editor over birth years for voice actors. Most VAs have only publicized their birth month and day, and unless they have been publicized in some conventional newspaper, that's about it. However the IP insists that Behind The Voice Actors can be used for their birth place and year. BTVA as far as I understand only verifies some of the credits as indicated by the green check marks. Any suggestions would be appreciated. It affects a ton of the VAs. In the meantime, I've had to tag better source needed, but that will just keep those annoying BLP-like source tags alive. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: First, a clarification: from experience, most VAs actually do have known years of birth, and even those who have obscure years of birth, it's possible to find a source for a confirmed year of birth with a little digging. One interesting example is Emi Nitta: she has never confirmed a year of birth, but apparently there's a Japanese newspaper from her home prefecture (I saw a picture of it somewhere a long time ago, I think on 4chan, but unfortunately I can't recall the link) which, on a report on her, gave her age at the time of publication (if I can recall correctly, the newspaper was published in early-or-mid-2013, and gave her age as 27, which would mean her year of birth is 1986). However, a sizable minority don't have a known year of birth, and some of those in that minority just happen to be the bigger names. But for a start, try checking each voice actor's Japanese Wikipedia entry, and if a source for a year of birth is provided, then use it. You could also try Oricon, if the voice actor has an active musical career. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That works for the Japanese VAs. Hitoshi Doi also tries to keep a database going. However, the VAs in question are for the English dubs, and unless they have published their own material (books, CDs) that can be found on copyright.gov, or self-published on their website, it's hard to keep that around. Also some VAs have pointed to IMDb for their filmographies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointed to what though? In those cases I would use IMDb, and the source where it says such and such pointed to such and such roles on IMDb. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The VA on their website would say something like: "For a list of my roles, see IMDb" Example: Liam O'Brien's twitter: https://twitter.com/VoiceOfOBrien points to http://m.imdb.com/name/nm1240448/ Does that mean we can use IMDb as his list of roles, and that he is okay with his birth date as posted there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In Liam's case, it looks like he published the info to IMDb himself, so that might be okay. Other VAs like Monica Rial just have the link to IMDb AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say just be careful, sometimes websites of actresses/actors are managed by other people as well. If there is just a link to IMDb on their profile I wouldn't use it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga character

Has the "age" parameter been depreciated? I tried playing around a bit and saw that it doesn't show if you try to use it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it this depreciated but I'd argue it should be. I mean, how important can be the fictional age of character to real word perspective it should have? Wouldn't it be too WP:IN-U, especially in the infobox? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it is too in-universe, if it is depreciated it should also be removed from the template. if the age of the character is essential to the story it can always be explained in text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense since the age would rarely if ever be important and in rare cases where it is we can cover that in prose.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gangta. move request

There is currently a discussion under way about whether to move Gangsta. to Gangsta (manga). The discussion is currently under way at Talk:Gangsta.#Requested move 15 July 2015. —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hiroshi Ito: Disambiguate or eliminate?

Given the recent discussion started on Gangsta, I would like to get opinions on what to do with Hiroshi Ito over at Talk:Hiroshi Ito. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Robotech

An IP editor has raised concerns over at the character page I have answered with what I thought was a good reply but giving a heads up. The complaint is that Wikipedia is making the Robotech series "inferior" to the Macross series. Something about what pages get character articles and what ones don't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you at least understood what the editor was stating you would realize that Robotech takes from Macross and that the problem exists more with the origins than with the "detail". Do you skim editor posts? The reason I say this is because you seem to be unable to parse (and comprehend) the original comments. The IP is concerned with origin material not being cross-referenced and explained in context and the how page is a scrapbook of unrelated and thoughtlessly collected materials. The editor may not understand some Wikipedia concepts, but you didn't do anything to rectify that... so I guess I have to do it for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Chris, although I wish you would focus more on the IP's questions and less on my response as I was asking for a second opinion on that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I left a detailed message on the page because the IP editor is unlikely to see this. An editor of your experience should have understood the complaint and not needed a second opinion. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris each experience is different, I find it noteworthy that Sephy also replied but didn't take into account my response. I don't consider myself perfect by any means. Anyways the IP has been answered so I will leave it at that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphic Novel Template

Need consensus to request ISBN to be replaced with ISBNT. Having the words ISBN repeated, when noted at the top, is pointless and adds clutter to the template. Here is the test case page using the Sanbox changes I've done (link) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 14:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the repetition of the word "ISBN". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it will be clear it's the ISBN in the first example (Two languages, with title) where the header just says Original release? Should it say Original release and ISBN? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AngusWoof that the first example has the potential to be confusing. The other examples look very nice, though. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I hadn't notice that. Indeed, I guess Angus is right. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm under the impression readers could figure this out for themselves. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on the reader, to be honest. Still, because it's not immediately clear in this example (the others are really nice and clear, great work!) I would definitely prefer to see ISBN mentioned somewhere in the header (?) of the template, maybe like AngusWoof suggested, to be on the safe side. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of alternate colors in episode lists.

While using alternate color to distinguish between different seasons in a single series sometimes makes sense, I am seeing arbitrary color added to episode lists. Particular with article for the current season. Examples include Gangsta., School-Live!, Danchigai, Monster Musume, and Castle Town Dandelion. For starters, I don't think this is a good idea to individually colorize each episode list because to disconnects the list from the predominant color used by the infobox, nav templates, and volume template, light blue. Why isn't the default blue color good enough? Why were those particular colors chose for those lists? Should such practice even be encouraged? —Farix (t | c) 03:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me (See also List of MythBusters episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes), I would keep the colors confined to episode lists though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly wide spread practice on wikipedia. An obvious example I can think of is Orange Is the New Black. The colours are generally chosen to match some aspect of the show (If not so obvious as "orange" and "black"). Other choices, for example, match the colour theme of the infobox image. E.g. for Monster Musume, the infobox image has a red theme (red number, red snake tail), the image for Castle Town Dandelion has a pink background, the character in the infobox image for School-Live! has pink hair etc.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as they don't do weird color schemes on the header. That can be difficult to see and would not meet MOS access. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

See specifically WP:COLOR. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

5 Years ago when i edited List of Aria episodes with Quasirandom, we choose color based on the color used for each season / OVA logo. KrebMarkt (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Anime list

Do we need to put number of season & episode on these lists?

If not, can someone stop him/her? - Marlin Setia1 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a case of mass socking, I have rollbacked what I could List of fantasy anime needs admin help though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I had an admin semi protect List of fantasy anime, if you see anymore edits like such feel free to revert and report. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - Marlin Setia1 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of these lists, someone tagged them for original research. Are they to require citations? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I would think so yes, otherwise anyone can just add whatever they please based on their personal opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gangsta.

RM discussion is ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Future airdates

As I explained above, in sourcing weekly episode airdates like Dragon Ball Super, we should update the sources (broadcaster and official website) when the next airdate is confirmed by either the network or on the official website, as well as Media Arts Database if it is available. Otherwise, if there is no source, episodes must remain hidden until the date is officially confirmed by the network or on the company's official website. Episode titles are usually confirmed by the next episode previews (as with the plot, those titles can be sourced to the show itself if the previews say so) or in magazines such as V-Jump and those count as primary sources. Per User:Narutolovehinata5's proposal, we should start a separate discussion about this matter here. Does anyone have thoughts or objections? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using primary sources since a secondary source is an "author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Half of your issue with the showing of data only post-confirmation is asinine because other "not-official" sources are well-known to have the dates and titles for materials many weeks in advance. Barring some tragedy like the Toho quake - most services and times are routine and uninterrupted. I don't need to be from the future to understand time slots and how to read a TV Guide. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. For example, even though MSN is not an official source, it can be used for broadcast air dates in North America (as it happened with the List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes), correct? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a valid source. I used a book for the Astro Boy series by Schodt and it only had maybe a few differences from "fan-sources" due to a scheduling blip in the original run. Getting release dates for 1960s era works is surprisingly difficult to do as well, but the book made clear so much I didn't understand about the run. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, here, at the village pump, and even on WT:V. An IP editor is currently under a block right now because of this very thing. The consensus of every discussion been that all future dates MUST be sourced. One cannot calculate the date bases on the airing of previous episodes, but the date must be made explicit by the source. What I warned Wonchop about was the fact that he was adding future air dates without a source, not once, not twice, but three different times int eh last few days. Wonchop is well aware of the consensus that future air date must be sourced, but still continues to ignore the consensus because he didn't think anyone was going to call him on it. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My main issue comes from User:TheFarix's recent complaints on how the airdates for the next episode of a weekly anime shouldn't be included because it is allegedly unsourced, with Lord Sjones23 making further implications that if the title isn't sourced either, it should just be hidden, neither of which seem to apply to episodes that have already aired. Basically, the issue is split into two parts, the airing date and the episode title.

Most of the complaints for the airing dates seem to come from that assuming the next episode of a weekly show comes out seven days later is considered original research, which may be understandable for long running shows listing a few entries weeks in an advance, but seems oddly uneccessary for 1/2 cour series that generally stick to their schedule barring some production disaster. My counter to this is to include a link to the anime series' "On Air" page, which lists its airings on each channel as effectively being "Every week on this day at this time from this date onwards" (eg. From July 9, every Thursday at 23:30 for School-Live!), which not only explains the reasoning for future episodes, but also gives additional sourcing for episodes already aired. In essence, its basically the networks/producers assuming we're smart enough to know math, rather than go through the unneccessary effort of telling us when each episode airs. Episodes that sway from this schedule, either due to a production issue or a break, can be individually referenced with a source or footnote.

Titles are a slightly different manner. For the series that do previews, titles for the next episode are given to us, often translated by whoever's simulcasting it (eg. Crunchyroll, Funimation), so there's no doubting their veritability (if a series doesn't use previews, a next episode entry is left out until it airs). However, much like plot summaries and character descriptions, the only truly verifiable source for these titles is watching the episode itself. Pinning these to specific sources comes with its own problems; links to the simulcast episodes can't be used since they're usually behind a paywall, the sites that broadcast the series often use an automated schedule so selecting a specific date will be tricky, and Japanese blogs that record the future titles are more often than not considered as unreliable sources. Not sure how to circumvent this other than perhaps a footnote along the lines of "all English titles for current and future episodes are taken from Crunchyroll/Funimation/etc". Thoughts on either would be appreciated cos it seems harsh to be threatened with blocks just for doing what me and other editors have naturally been doing for ages. Wonchop (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

All future air dates require sources per the verifiability policy. You cannot calculate them based on the airing of previous episodes. The consensus derived from the last discussion at the village pump was very clear about that. It doesn't matter if the series/season is 10 episodes long or runs continuously through the year. If you want to post a future air date on Wikipedia, then a source for that air date is very much necessary. —Farix (t | c) 21:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, the On Air pages provides us with that source with their wording. They tell us straight up that a show is supposed to air on that day of the week following the date of the first episode unless they tell us otherwise. This isn't so much arguing over whether this stuff needs a source; it's trying to figure out what sources we actually need. What sources are reliable? Which sites can we go to get the neccessary information each week? Stuff like that. The On Air pages seem like a good way to provide a reasoning for these dates without overloading each page with individual references. Wonchop (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The "on air" page only confirms the date of the first episode. It does not verify the dates of any episodes aired after that. You must have a source that states each episodes' air date directly. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't tell you the dates because it tells you what day of the week it airs. If that still doesn't work then please suggest some alternatives that would qualify. Wonchop (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait until the episode actually airs or find a source that actually states the date of "episode x". It really is that simple most times. —Farix (t | c) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm going on holiday tomorrow I won't argue any further tonight, but would encourage other to discuss their thoughts on where best to get reputable sources. Thoughts on the whole titles thing? Wonchop (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the best way to get reputable sources is from the websites of the channels that broadcast whatever anime series they air and use them as general references for future airdates (i.e. Fuji TV, TBS, TV Asahi and TV Tokyo). My point is that if the network announces the airdates, we can uncover episodes or add the airdates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My main query concerning that method was that, due to how some of these websites are programmed, it's hard to find a URL for a specific airing date. Got any workarounds? Either way, the titles, much like the plot, is something that's told to us through the anime itself (as opposed to the dates which, as we've already covered, is largely reliant on assumption from both viewers and producers to figure out days of the week), so it moreso warrants a presence. Wonchop (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A few things: 1) Crunchyroll paywalls mean the citation for the English title will have a {{subscription required}} tag on it until it becomes available to people to view and verify the segment. Cite episode can still be used. 2) Programming guides should exist for the networks. They might not specify which episode is airing although they often specify if it's a new one, and can account for time changes. Anime rarely gets a rerun on the same network; and depends on the other first-run sister channels to provide that. On Funimation Channel, they tag the [P] for premiere since they often rerun blocks of programming and have marathons. 3) Archiving the programming guide can be an issue, as with LocateTV and Adult Swim listings and them pesky robots.txt sites. The refs will have to be converted from a cite web to cite news / citation which so as to not require the accessdate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've requested that {{Future episodes editnotice}} be added to the following pages:

If there are other pages or lists about ongoing anime series that could use this template, please follow the procedure here. —Farix (t | c) 12:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a good technique has been found for Umaru-chan, as there's a page counting down to the next episode's release that can be referenced on the future episode's entry, which can be coupled with the title provided by the episode itself. If anyone finds similar pages that can be used for other series, feel free to contribute those to their respective pages. I'm guessing some shows might have next episode previews on official YouTube channels, so they could probably be used. I myself tend to mostly go with whatever format each page is currently going with, but I will take care to avoid putting in future dates for episodes that aren't so easily sourced (there's a few I've recently added summaries to where I've just removed the future date if it was already there). Wonchop (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Busy

On April 21, 2015, I nominated Sakura (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle) to GA. However, next Friday I'm leaving on holidays for a week so I won't be able to work in a possible review unless I have good wifi. If anybody else helps with the review, I would appreciate it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Have a wonderful holiday! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If it fails don't worry. There's always next time.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE And I'm back.Tintor2 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Summer/Fall 2015 convention announcements

Just a heads up to keep an eye out for the latest announcements at New York Comic Con, AnimeFest, Nan Desu Kan and Anime Weekend Atlanta in the following months. With announcements of titles such as Sailor Moon Crystal, Monster Musume, Triage X, Beyond the Boundary and Daimidaler for example, there might be possibilities of higher activity, vandalism and edit-warring in some of those articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As always will be watching the Anime Convention articles for trouble, but I doubt it will be an issue. Minus the big problems at Anime Expo this year with an user that would not cite/communicate, the usual pile of good faith edits, and the articles that need rewriting it's been stable. Esw01407 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the ones I've seen have been good faith cast announcements but yes, we need to nitpick any posts where VA's might have revealed their old aliases or personal information like birthdays and ages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Do American voice actors tend to reveal their personal information at cons? Sorry, I'm not very familiar with what goes on at American conventions, as I'm more familiar with Asian ones. But would such things be a good thing? The only problem would be how to cite such information in articles if the sources are con panels. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've used "cite speech" for such question/answer information brought up in panels. (examples: Katie Griffin and Carrie Keranen) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless the contents of the panel is published in a reliable source, what is said at the panel can't be used per WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 12:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters

Is this page only includes Neon Genesis Evangelion only ? That means we need to remove new Angels and characters. Or maybe we need to change it names to List of Evangelion characters or something else so no one think this page is not only for Neon Genesis Evangelion series. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marlin Setia1: As far as I know the above article includes all characters in the Evangelion franchise, not just characters from the original anime. Therefore, even characters from the movies can be included, provided that they are included in a way which satisfies our Manual of Style on fiction-related topics. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Someone insist to make this page only for the original story (without the characters from the Rebuild one), i'm already give up to him/her, so can someone do something with this ? Marlin Setia1 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Because there are no response, i will do myself. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, i'm 100% give up with this, i'm not sure i know how to report it. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've completely reorganized the list to present it in a more real-life context. This allows the restoration of the characters from Rebuild of Evangelion into its own section along with the video game characters. —Farix (t | c) 11:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems the other editor involved is calling me a racist for getting involved.[17] This is on top of calling Marlin Setia1 a "coward" earlier.[18] I gave him a WP:NPA warning, but if this behavior continues, report it to WP:ANI. —Farix (t | c) 12:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"

The usage and primary topic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is under discussion, see talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Little help

I tried adding the Seventh Hokage ref to List of Naruto characters but regardless of what I change it looks like it doesn't work. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done You were trying to add the reference under the manga volumes for the regular series when it should have been at top minus the numbers (which are chapters). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :DTintor2 (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)