Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Lists of anime and manga characters (Category)

Category:Lists of anime and manga characters is underpopulated. Should the lists in Category:Anime and manga characters by series be moved there, or is the "Lists" category redundant?--Nohansen 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Category:Anime and manga characters by series is the older cat, the list articles should be moved there. Category:Lists of anime and manga characters seems to have been created because the original editor didn't realize the other one already existed. --Farix (Talk) 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When ahead and sent it to CfD. See the discussion here. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Related to this, you may also want to take a look at this: Category:Asian anime and manga characters which has Category:Iraqi anime and manga characters (3 articles) and this Category:Japanese anime and manga characters -> is simply ridiculous, as over 80% of all chars are Japanese. I'd say it's overcategorization. Not sure who in the project is taking care of the animanga cats though? Ninja neko 07:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An Asian anime character vs a Japanese anime character. Hmmm. Yes, that's definite overcategorization. EDIT: Is it necessary to categorize characters by ethnicity? There's also: Category:American anime and manga characters and Category:African_anime_and_manga_characters. Yet, none for European. Items under Category:Lists of anime and manga characters should be moved to Category:Anime and manga characters by series. The "sort" of "by series" makes it more organized. Then, the general "anime and manga" category can contain "Anime and manga characters by series" and other such categories as sub-categories. MORE EDIT: Well, here's the main ethnicity category: Category:Anime_and_manga_characters_by_origin. KyuuA4 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Japanese original run and release dates

Is there a guideline on what dates to use for Japanese original run and release dates for anime and manga articles? Do we list what date it was in Japan when an anime is broadcast or a manga is released in Japan? Or do we use the date at UTC+0? --Silver Edge 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would we use dates at UTC+0? It's hard enough to get exact dates for most manga and some OVAs. --Farix (Talk) 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was using UTC+0 as an example, it was either that or Eastern Time Zone (North America). --Silver Edge 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. What does time zone have to do with release dates? --Farix (Talk) 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You should list the date on which it originally aired in Japan, since that's where it aired originally. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Some anime say it airs on a certain date, but past the 24 hour clock like 26:00. Should we add one to the date because it's pretty much the next day? Toothpyx 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Thursday night at 25:00 is still Thursday night, even if it is technically Friday. Doceirias 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

25:00 in the night in Japan is 1:00 on the following day in English Wikipedia due to WP:DATE#Times.--Mujaki 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that any show listed as running at 25:00, etc., should be listed on the actual day on which it aired. The "25:00" time is just a marketing gimmick that started in the late 1990s in Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New cat proposal

Seeing as how we already have about 800 or so articles in Category:Anime of the 2000s, and 400+ articles in Category:Anime of the 1990s, do you not think it reasonable that we start allocating the anime by year of release rather than the decade they aired in? Like how WP:VG does it with Category:Video games by year and lists every year like Category:2007 video games. Same goes for Category:21st century films and it's subcategories going by year. And there will always be more anime coming in, and I bet within another year, the 'Anime of the 2000s' category will have well over 1000 articles which is a little hard to navigate if you ask me. So, anyone agree?--十八 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. You up to the task of fixing it? :P (actually, a bot could probably be written for it...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

200-400? doesn't seem large enough to require further categorization. --Farix (Talk) 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 1990's is pre-Wiki which means many series within that period and beforehand have been omitted, largely that they're "unknown". Where as, new series coming in now and thereafter -- they nearly instantly get their own articles due to recency. Hmm, will notability come into play for lesser known series within this decade? KyuuA4 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say very much so. I wouldn't doubt we have plenty of articles on anime and manga that wouldn't pass the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would wait until it was closer to 600-800 before breaking it down by year. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We also might want to think about doing something with the infobox to automate the process. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Megadeus

We would like some input from the community on this article, you can reference our discussions on its talk page. -The Big X 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability question

Would a Japanese manga written left-to-right be sufficient notablity for an article devoted to it? Even if, as with Wallaby (manga), it was discontinued without enough chapters for a tankobon volume on its own? The only other potentially notable feature about it is that one character makes a cameo appearence in the Azumanga Daioh manga (not anime). —Quasirandom 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the manga? --Masamage ♫ 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Left-to-right. Right-to-left. That's rather trivial. If it were to fail notability, it would be for this reason: The story was stopped after 8 chapters without a conclusion, and the author seems to have no intention of continuing it. If it is not notable to the author himself, why would it be notable to Wiki? If anything, some of Wallaby's content can be merged with Kiyohiko Azuma. KyuuA4 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter if we think it's trivial or not, it's a matter if it had any (sourceable) impact on the real world. -- Ned Scott 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much in Wallaby (manga) that's pertinant to Kiyohiko Azuma that isn't already there. Ned's question is exactly mine -- is that a sufficient impact to keep the article? —Quasirandom 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If not, it might live nicely on Kiyohiko Azuma, but the format would probably need to change a little so it won't look weird. -- Ned Scott 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Magic Seal

Several anime shows and Japanese games use "Magic seals" (ex: Naruto, Castlevania: Dawn of sorrow) I was thinkign of making the current Magic seal into a stub rather than a redirect, but I don't have any sources. Does anyone know more about these "seals" in Japanese culture/myths? -Ravedave 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look into esoteric Buddhism and the martial arts; I think the term to look for is 'mudra'. --Gwern (contribs) 02:48 9 November 2007 (GMT)

Interesting AfD results

The recent AfD on Naruto geography has resulted in an interesting closure. The closing administrator basically stated that the point about notability not being inherited is mainly intended for articles about people and applying it to broader topics is tenuous, particularly when applied to articles that are part of an article series. --Farix (Talk) 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a very wise decision. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this comes from our odd use of the word "notability". We basically end up defining sub-article notability by the amount of real world information, but that's not what the word actually means, nor dose it necessarily mean if we include a topic at all or not, but rather how much we include about it. Likewise, the use of the phrase "notability is not inherited" has been used outside of it's original meaning, to become something like "Just because we include the parent topic doesn't mean we'll talk about everything in depth". At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't do these things, and sometimes we do justify the greater topical detail. We likely need better phrases with clearer meaning :P -- Ned Scott 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Light novel lists

Since the first Missing (novel) comes out in English next week, I thought I'd slip some backhanded promotion in by asking what people thought of the light novel list used on that page (and Baccano!.) It's a very ugly looking format, not nearly as nice as the manga lists discussed here recently, so there's obviously lots of things we can improve. The basic idea was to get the title, date, and ISBNs with a summary for each book, but also deal with light novels that are essentially one book split over multiple volumes for marketing reasons. Doceirias 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic nomination

Hello. I've nominated List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto chapters (Part I), and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) to be a featured topic. Feel free to comment at the nomination here. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Example lists in genre articles

Yuri (term) is showing resistance to removal of its example lists. Input requested.--SeizureDog 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like something that simply needs some arbitrary choosing to make the lists limited, if they are to exist. Quite literally, I'm thinking of proposing taking a set number of examples, and selecting them at random from the existing list. It might sound weird, but if it at least helps wean the article off the list, it might help. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call canvassing. Kyaa the Catlord 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

... no... no it's not... Jesus people... -- Ned Scott 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Ned, can you not wait for your RfC to draw even one further person before edit warring to get your own way? Kyaa the Catlord 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're the one defending a painfully excessive list that is even specifically marked as "minor". Common sense is not canvassing, and reverting an editor, yourself, who's only out to prove a point, is not an edit war. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr so far, Ned, wanna go for four? And yes, I am totally aware of how LAME this is, I'm willing to stop just as soon as you wait for discussion rather than forcing your opinion on those who've watched that page for years. Kyaa the Catlord 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing games with you. The three revert rule does not apply to any revert, so don't even try to bullshit me there (especially when I was removing unsourced content). You want to reply with childish insults, unreliable sources, and stupid games, go ahead. I went there to help find a middle ground, but no, you just wrote me off an some generic "enemy" as you often do to people who disagree with you. -- Ned Scott 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert war shows precisely how much you're willing to give. I asked you to HOLD ON until consensus was found, but you were unhappy with that and decided to troll via edit summaries. Nicely done Ned. Nicely done. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times did you revert? How was your reasons any better than mine? Doesn't the fact that you are just trying to prove a point, disrupting what should have been a calm and normal discussion, play into this? You have the nerve to attempt to blatantly lie to everyone here by trying to appear as if you have not done exactly as many reverts than I have? I reverted the removal of the minor list twice, but you have the nerve to count my unrelated removal of Figure 17, because it was unsourced? What the hell is your problem? Do you just like to start fights for no apparent reason or because you believe there to be some cabal out to get your lesbian anime list? -- Ned Scott 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your continued rambling to forgive your own bad behavior by making bad faith assumptions is noted. Kyaa the Catlord 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And seriously, please try to tell me how someone who makes edit summaries like "removing Figure 17, leaving the painfully shitty and stupid minor list. You want to put Figure 17 back in, cite a source" can straight out state that I'm being disruptive when I ask nicely for you to calm down, stop reverting and discuss like the gentleman I'm certain you are. I've been more than reasonable in this, you're the only freaking out, cursing and launching into personal attacks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...if this is canvassing, then we might as well kill ALL wikiprojects, because 80% of discussions on them revolve around similar pointing toward articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, cause rather than trying to discuss this with the involved editors who have been working on the page, it is better to go gather your bully boys and squash any resistance. Top form. Wikipedia Prevails! Kyaa the Catlord 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, more objective opinions. Which, in theory, will avoid the extremely childish squabble the two of you have been having. This is what Wikiprojects are for - providing a resource that is both objective and knowledgeable. Doceirias 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Objective? My edit summary: "wait for discussion and consensus before making such bold edits, please." Ned's response: "the minor list is extremely excessive. Use common sense. and no, Figure 17 is not Yuri". Do you see the difference? I ask nicely, he questions my common sense. Who is being objective? Who is asking for discussion before making major edits? Who isn't freaking out and making personal attacks (questioning my "common sense") rather than trying to build consensus? A revert is NOT showing "knowledge", any troll or vandal can do that. Ned's next summary "kicked it up a notch" as Emeril would say: "removing Figure 17, leaving the painfully shitty and stupid minor list. You want to put Figure 17 back in, cite a source". A victory for objectivity indeed. Kyaa the Catlord 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your assertion that the original poster was canvassing, which I disagree with. I agree that you've done a better job keeping your language appropriate, but you have also been so focused on his language that you have failed to address any of the points he made in between insults. I don't think you get a free pass as the good one here. You keep calling for a discussion, but you haven't discussed anything except Ned's inappropriate tone. Doceirias 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect a "free pass". I do expect that when people come to an article they treat other people with respect rather than walking in with a "we're here to suppress your "resistance"" chip on their shoulder. This is a collaborative effort, not a battleground, and too often people tend to use the MOS and guidelines as a club instead of discussing major changes. Mayumi simply asked SeizureDog to work with us, not take a militant "we must beat you down" stance. If you take a moment and simply review the history of the page, you will see that his initial edit had an antagonistic agenda, he stated he wanted to "kill" the lists. If you read the archives, we are not unwilling to compromise, but he does not seem to be based on his desire to "kill" and the dismissive tone he's taken on the talk page. Working with someone is so much better than working against them. Kyaa the Catlord 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article

I was wondering if anyone could help with the article Yasushi Ishii. I am not a member of WP:ANIME and as such I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to categorize the page under the scope of WP:ANIME (by adding the tag to the talk page). Anyway, I started the article and wrote a bit about his work, but much of the information regarding Yasushi Ishii can only be found on non-English websites. As I can't read any of the forms of written Japanese, I'm at a bit of a dead end. Thanks in advance. --Sharkface217 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a little bit. Not much, but a little. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some for the Japanese wiki, but there isn't much there, and some of it I couldn't translate well so I left it out.--十八 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He is a famous composer in Japan, but he is not a seiyu.--Mujaki 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've been doing a bit of work on some articles related to Hellsing, as the pages regarding the franchise seem (at best) disjointed and messy. I don't even remember how I ended up making this article, but I guess that's the just an everyday duty of a wikipedian. :-P Anyway, thanks again. --Sharkface217 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon media was listed for de-featuring

You may want to have a look at the objections and criteria, and then comment on or address the objections raised here: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of RahXephon media. --129.241.151.140 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications on image rules needed

Beta commandbot is going on crawling for all NONFREE images; and I have to let many of these pics deleted since in my opinion most of these anime-related pics-- namely character screencaps-- are replacable, if we can get some fans to draw it.

However, I wonder if this is the consensus for this project? If yes, I would rather think Image:Yoake Mae yori Ruri Iro na-cabbage.PNG would be one of the few screencaps to be perserved.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be against using fanart for the same reason I was against using pictures of cosplayers - it isn't the work we're attempting to illustrate. If there is a legitimate fair use rationale, that bot doesn't tag images. Personally, I don't think an internet meme is a subject notable enough to justify a fair use image, especially when we're trying to find group shots to avoid using an image for each character. Doceirias 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem is about the "replacability," above all things. Wikilawyers can always claim that screencaps can be replaced by GFDL-released fanart.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that qualifies as a replacement. Doceirias 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's like replacing a screenshot of a live-action character with a drawing of that character, or with a photo of a fan dressed as the character. —Quasirandom 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanart itself has copyright/trademark issues of it's own. Under the non-free use criteria, any fanart would be interpreted as a non-free use image and a potential copyvio. At one time, we had a fanart representation of Midori, however that was removed by some administrators using the arrangement that it violated the fair-use criteria, even if it was fanart. --Farix (Talk) 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just answer me these two important questions:

1. Is character screencaps/ scans fall under non-replacable material, and
2. If not, can be replacible with what.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It cant be replaced unless the artist releases a copy of the character into the public domain. Fanart is violating the original authors copyright. If you're gonna use a fair-use image, use an authentic one. Recreating copyrighted material doesn't bypass the copyright laws. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm not expert, but from everything I gather, fanart is quite legal, as fair use (certainly as much as fanfiction). But it's also against the rules on WP for being derivative, or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanart is not legal, but rather tolerated and/or ignored. We can not use fanart as a free replacement for fair use images as the same copyright issues exist (compounded with the additional artist who drew the fan art aloso having some minor claim to copyright on the image). For fictional works, expecially visual fictional works such as anime and manga, the only images that can be used must be fair use. The issue here is making sure a good fair use rationale is placed on each image being used for each article in which it is used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note to this topic, editors might want to start saving local copies of images just incase you can't get to them all in time. I've just gone through and did so for most of the Cardcaptor Sakura images. Then I can take my time and see which are worth actually saving, without having to worry about a real deadline. I also would like to propose that we start categorizing our images more based on what series they come from, so that working on them is easier. Thanks to Category:Digimon media, keeping track of that group of images has been much easier (and not just for NFCC stuff, but for transwiki work as well). -- Ned Scott 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do with Case Closed after clarification-- but not much can be done. But then screencaps for this anime seems to be easy to come by. What I am thinking is a fair use rationale template for anime screencaps?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be computer savvy to make a screencap of a series so they're abundant or potentially so. Fair Use Templates MUST be used for any non-free images. It's better to use the template than type up a simple list in the summary so you won't have the BOT keep on coming back. I've had that issue with several images where the Fair Use Rationale was clearly stated however not using the template and was tagged. After being replaced by the template, I had no problems. Key thing is that you have to have a Fair Use Rationale no matter what or else BOT and/or user will go ahead and tag it for speedy delete. I try to add Fair Use wherever I see images tagged but it should always be the owner's responsibility to do so. Fox816 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

APTX 4869

This has been happened for a while, but I still don't know what to deal with it-- and I don't want to escalate it to WP:AN/I yet.

Earlier this month, User:Masaruemoto moved the article's content to List of Case Closed characters [1] [2], stating the its content violates WP:FICT-- something I don't particularly argue but others here might. The problem he didn't ask for consensus for such a merge, and if he had read Talk:APTX 4869, this article had been prodded before and I actually wondered where to merged it to. I left a message on his talk page but had no reply as of yet. So I decide to the things myself-- but out of the following choice:

1. Keep the status as of now (content merged to List of Case Closed characters
2. Revert to the status before 5 Novebmer (ie unmerge), then raise a prod to discuss where to merge, or
3. Speedy.

What would you choose?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would do #2 because it's not even a character. There might be a better place to put it. Toothpyx 00:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an issue here. It's something that shouldn't be it's own article, so it makes sense to just merge it somewhere. People remove prods all the time, but nothing here has been deleted, just reorganized. If there's a better place to put the information, put it there. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OS-tan

OS-tan, the article on unofficial Microsoft OS mascots from 2ch/2chan has been mentioned as requiring sources from the last AfD. Note that the article has been itself quoted as a source by Wired Magazine. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is that Wired Magazine source? KyuuA4 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/culture/design/multimedia/2007/04/gallery_mascots?slide=10&slideView=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your watch lists

I've discovered that a certain user is unilaterally merging hundreds of articles into "list of" articles without discussion. I'd suggest everyone check their watch lists and act accordingly. These undiscussed redirects are really out of control. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is this user? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN. He's currently got an Arbcom case called against him for doing this sort of shit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a party to the arbcom (however if I had known about it I would have participated.) If anyone here is a party to it might I suggest using the following argument: Per WP:IGNORE any guidline can and should be broken if it's enforcement is a detriment to Wikipedia. TTN is using WP:FICT and such in his arguments. Simply bring up the fact that his methods and choices in enforcing said guidelines is making Wikipedia suck, so therefore what he is doing is wrong and the argument should be settled as such. It's clearly obvious that the consensus is on this side of the argument. That's my 2 cents. Elhector (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For your reference: WP:RFAR#Episode and Character Articles.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to buck the trend here, but IMHO better they be merged into lists than inevitably put up at AfD. 90% of all anime characters with individual articles don't have the real-world importance and coverage to meet WP:FICT; and with the recent trends of fictional elements from other universes and media being put up for deletion (in last few weeks I've been seeing articles about elements from Dungeons and Dragons, Warcraft and Warhammer 40,000 up for deletion and passing), it's inevitable that anime character articles would probably be next to be considered for deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I think the issue here is that TTN is doing more than just merging stubs and articles consisting only of a plot summary; he's also merging articles that are fairly or very fleshed out, and articles that have Good Article or Featured Article status. At least, that's what I gleaned from glancing over the Arbitration. Doceirias (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Doceirias, you mean that his merges are removing content? --Gwern (contribs) 01:37 22 November 2007 (GMT)

Yes, the "merges" are simply bold redirects where no material is being moved from the pages being redirected. It is rather disruptive and completely improper. His actions may not be "against policy" but they certainly deviate from the spirit of Wikipedia and its collaborative, consensus driven mission. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doceirias. Also, even if a lot of the articles get nominated for deletion and subsequently get voted for deletion at least they've gone through the process. IMHO that's much better then a single editor coming here and making tons of wholesale changes with out any discussion and with an obvious lack of consensus. There is a huge difference between being bold and being completely wreckless. Elhector (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For your reference, ArbCom has accepted this case-- but it would not rule on content policy; it would only rule on TTN's behaviour.Archived request--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bite my head off...

Seriously, don't. I like breathing. Anyways, I wanted to show the Project my Userbox. IF I was supposed to put it on the community userbox thing, please TELL ME, and don't kill me for making a mistake. Tell me what you, as the WikiProject, think.

Code	Result
|{{User:L337p4wn/Userbox/FMA}}	FMA This user is not a half pint or a midget!	Usage

--L337p4wn (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

CHOMP! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think userboxes are required to be all in one place. I've seen plenty that are in userspace. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean post it with all the other anime/manga userboxes here? People tend to post suggestions/requests for comments on the talk page there for userboxes, although the response time tends to be slow. Or if as Nihonjoe said, have the template on your own userspace vs. on Wikipedia space, e.g.

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/x userbox here}}

Either one is fine; I tend to put my anime ones on Wikipedia space because that precedent already exists, while for others I use my userspace. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to the Anime and Manga userbox page! :) L337p4wn (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No manga template?

So many manga lists and they all use wikitables of similar style, so to prevent editors from adding images on each volume released and to set a standard, should their be one? _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, especially since some of the fields in the featured manga lists don't apply to some of the manga articles I've been editing -- especially the volume title, and for some manga, the tankobon chapters don't have titles, and in one case (Please Save My Earth) there are no chapter divisions at all -- and for others, there are relevant fields I see no way to include -- such as the date chapters take place in List of Yotsuba&! chapters. I suspect there's no good way to template manga lists that will account for all possible variations. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to trailers is discouraged?

Any of the admins care to inform me the Wikipedia policy on linking movie articles to (specifically) trailers?

An Admin on the farsi wikipedia has left me a message citing WP:NOT#LINK, and has deleted every link I put from every anime article to any trailer of that movie/series. He claims "links to trailers are not encyclopedic and are not relevant". Am I missing something here? Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on where the trailer is hosted. On the official site? The official site link should take care of that. On YouTube? Are we sure the copyright holders posted it? Otherwise, we can't link to it. Doceirias (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The links mostly go to IMDB or the official website.--Zereshk (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to note: rules on one wikipedia do not necessarily apply on another. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are only around 2 admins active at any one time on the entire Farsi Wikipedia. So it would seem that I dont have much say in this matter if an Admin says something, I gather? Their laws seem to be a translation of English wikipedia rules. Do we have a problem here with linking to trailers, as far as "relevance" and WP:NOT#LINK is concerned?--Zereshk (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As Doceirias indicated, simply linking to the official site for the series is good enough. If the trailer is not on an official site, then we generally don't link to it, and if it is on the official site, we link to the official site in general rather than directly to the trailer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:use English question

A question about wp:use english. Many series have a manga and an anime adaptation. Sometimes both of them get licensed with different companies and the transliteration of some words are different. Which should be used in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothpyx (talk • contribs)

If the article is about the manga, use that; the same for the anime. If it's about both, use the one which is most common. If neither is more common than the other, mention both in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Like with anything on WP, often you have to decide on a case by case basis with is the 'better' version to use. If there's two equally valid English names, you have to find a good criteria...or possibly just use whichever was used first as a last resort. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)