Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 33

Deletion of Kodomo manga

Raising a semi-important deletion debate for the project. Please weigh in. If it passes, a certain number of articles will need to be updated to reflect.--Remurmur (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Absorb WP:O-Parts Hunter?

I know, the previous subproject absorption discussion didn't go anywhere, but WikiProject O-Parts Hunter appears to have been inactive since November 2007, based on the talk page. Its templates have already been deleted, and I see little reason we couldn't absorb it as an (inactive) workgroup. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be the likely result if someone nominated it for xFD, to be merged here as a work group, so no reason not to just bypass the step. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Doki Doki School Hours nominated for moving

I nominated the article for renaming since the original media, ie the manga, has not been licensed and remained as Sensei no Ojikan. Give your opinion at Talk:Doki Doki School Hours.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Three image copyright issues

During my scan for the terms 'animes' and 'mangas' in order to fix them, I came across three images who's copyright claims need to be checked into Image:ANIMES-TEMPORADA1.jpg, Image:Animebot-1°animes.jpg, and Image:Animebot-1°-animes.jpg. The user on Commons who uploaded the images, claims to be the copyright holder and has released the images into the public domain, however the images are a collage of anime series logos, which are copyrighted and trademark by the respective producers and license holders. --Farix (Talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty blatant WP:NONFREE and WP:COPYRIGHT violations. They aren't being used anyway, but they should all be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The images are hosted on Commons and could very well be used on one of the other Wikipedia's. But still, the image violates Commons own guidelines that all images hosted there must be free-use. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged. I hope I did it right; those are my first edits on Commons... —tan³ tx 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All three were deleted. —Dinoguy1000 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New WP:FICT

A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How would this change the current/previous situation? G.A.S^talk 05:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fragile Machine

The WP:OWNer of Fragile Machine seems quite insistent that his non-anime movie is anime. I don't want to trip on WP:3RR, can anyone else have a look? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the anime mentions and stub template (whoch should never be substituted =P ) in the absence of any evidence in the article or the sources/ELs that it is, in fact, an anime short, and I also tagged it for notability issues and put an animation film stub on it. It's on my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. —Dinoguy1000 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gantz chapters

The FLC has had a few responses. I would appreciate participation by more users. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maicching Machiko-sensei

The English Wikipedia desperately needs an article on Maicching Machiko-sensei. This is a very important subject (no matter how stupid it may be ^_~). This manga/anime/film has articles in other languages, but, so far, not in English. Anonymous users have little power, so I can't CREATE the article... but, if anyone is willing to start it, I can certainly help. ^_^--24.129.100.84 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like this one Maicching Machiko Sensei (no matter how absolutely pathetic it is)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops... silly me. ^_^ Apparently, it was recently created. Thank you very much for creating that redirect page (even if this anime is a worthless piece of trash) ^_~. I shall now expand the English article. ^_^--24.129.100.84 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. For future note, though, we do have a request page Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga for easy listing of series missing articles :) I've given it some basic expansion and I suspect that Maicching Machiko-sensei may be the more appropriate name (though Studio Peirott's English page calls it Miss Machiko so lacking any English licensing, perhaps that is the English name that should be used? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If Maicching Machiko-sensei is not used widely or recognized widely the general audidance, then Miss Machiko should be used.じんない 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Another edit-war in Mukuro Rokudo

When I thought all the problems regarding the article stopped, user Ving90 has been adding unsourced information regarding the age from the characters. I tried to talk to him in his talk page and add hidden messages to the infobox, but he ignores me. I did not send him any warning because he seems to have good faith edits. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that Ving90 (talk · contribs) has never made a single talk page edit since creating his or her account a little less then two months ago. It may very well be that he/she doesn't know about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Konpeki no Kantai/Kyokujitsu no Kantai

Hi, I'm interested in writing an article about this anime series. It piqued my interest since it's alternate history and after seeing the clips in Veoh and Youtube. I inserted references about this in the Yamato and the Isoroku Yamamoto articles. Anyone who wants to help me out with its creation, please discuss it here. I'm already figuring out how the article may be written, even if it would be a stub for now. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a sandbox article right now? Perhaps someplace like User:Eaglestorm/Konpeki no Kantai? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, I'm still trying to determine any valid links from my google searches that can hold up to scrutiny. Most of the konpeki no Kantai stuff is about that SNES/PCFX game, though i saw it being discussed on the antarctic press forum, which runs afoul of WP:EL. I also put this series on request a few months back. No takers so far. To be honest, I was thinking of condensing both of them in a 'Kantai series', then distinguish it from Garasu no Kantai. Wikipedians with Japanese language skills will be needed too. reach me on my talk page too, because this wikiproject is blocked in the office. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made the sandbox above...still a work in progress.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! I just checked these out from JP Wikipedia jp:紺碧の艦隊 and jp:旭日の艦隊. I think this can somehow be translated. They even have descriptions of various craft that were presenteed in an in-universe style. Can this be done? copying the stuff and cleaning them up here in the EN Wiki? --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

SuperRobotWars (SRW)

A whole bunch of Super Robot Wars have been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in the last few days, see WP:PRODSUM. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the series, could you list some specific pages? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, I have just updated it. G.A.S^talk 06:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is just a continuation of the deletions here, all these pages appear to consist of in-universe description and specifications and have no third-party coverage (let alone any real-world coverage) to justify a separate article. I support the deletions, this is just fancruft. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like good candidates to merge into a character list. But since these are video game characters, they are not within our scope. --Farix (Talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Gantz chapters possibly near to FLC

The chapter list for Gantz received a copy-edit and in the later peer review, it was mentioned it was very good. But it received only one comment in the peer review, could anybody have a look? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The assessment department might have been a better place for this, but whatever.

General

• As you're linking to a lot of characters on the character list, you might want to make use of redirects to list entries. Here's an example.
• An External links section might be nice.

Lead

• "semi-posthumous "game" in which" - Why is "game" put in quotation marks?
• "the Japanese-language magazine" - Why not only "Japanese"? Is the magazine published in other coutries as well?
• "in tankōbon format; the first volume" - might be a bit better.
• "Currently, twenty-four volumes" - Should use "24" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• "In order to complement the manga releases" - Is that really the main reason for the anime's existence? Or does it only sound good?
• "Publishing company Dark Horse Comics currently has licensing rights for the release of English translations of Gantz." - When did they purchase those rights?
• "published by Glénat in Spain and by Planet Manga in Germany, Italy, and Brazil" - might be a bit better.

List

• A very few characters seem to appear very often on the cover, so as not to link them over and over again, you might want to switch the linking to the summaries and leave the cover characters completely unlinked.

I only read the first summary, but if the rest is of similar quality, then they should be okay. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Goodraise^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should "twenty-four" be changed to "24"? WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words states that numbers over nine may be spelled out if it can be done in one or two words, and gives the examples "sixteen" and "eighty-four" to illustrate. —tan³ tx 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Writing "twenty-four" isn't exactly a violation of WP:MOSNUM. But as it states "commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words", it suggests that numerals are used most of the time. And seeing as the lead already holds a lot of numerals, sticking to that makes it look more coherent. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The romanization of words in katakana should not be in all-caps. Furthermore, romanizations should use English title casing; for example, the first three chapters should be "Aru Jiko", "Fukakai na Heya", and "Hadaka no Jisatsu Shōjo". —tan³ tx 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt find any external lik for the manga. Tx, should titles that are all in capitals be also changed?Tintor2 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless it is something that would normally be capitalized in English, such as an abbreviation. —tan³ tx 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another doubt, apart from "na" and "no", should other words not be changed to capitals?Tintor2 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a manual of style for this. No particles should be capitalized; ni, wa, ga, o, shi, kara, mo, etc. Doceirias (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese particles. —tan³ tx 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else I just noticed: You're citing the ANN encyclopedia on three occasions. If you've not yet done so, you should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Reference links. And before going to FLC you should at least try to get replacement sources for the cited information. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the ANN refs I see are within the acceptable realm of generally acceptable and would pass an FLC nom. Though do agree, if possible, better sources are always better :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please list requests like this one at the assessment department as well as they may slip under the radar otherwise. Thanks for the review, Goodraise. G.A.S^talk 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Genres

According to the Anime and Manga portal, ecchi and hentai are genres. However, in one of the articles that I created related to the works of Go Nagai (Oira sukeban, I think), some contributor removed ecchi from the genre field in the infobox and stated that ecchi is not a genre. For the moment, I've been using erotic instead of ecchi or hentai, but I'd like to know if the genres that are in the Anime and Manga portal are accepted for the animanga infoboxes. Jfgslo (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be good to make a list of acceptable genres. I would consider both as genres as I've seen them used extensively on sites such as ANN, as well as in magazine articles and such. "Ecchi" is more like a PG-13 or an "R" rating (for US people who know what that is), and "hentai" would be for "unrated" or porn. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well "unrated" that has sexually explicit scenes that are not a part of the storyline or are prolific.じんない 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that ecchi is a genre when all the other genres we use to describe anime and manga are based on their story content and not their visual content.--十八 07:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(Not sure where to ident this, as it's a response to all 4 previous posters.) I kinda smell original research here. If a reliable source calls the manga/anime "ecchi", "hentai", or "idunnowhat", then that's what you can write into the article. We don't need a list of acceptable genres, we need to satisfy the verifiability policy. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying: I've seen these two genres used in reviews in magazines. Multiple magazines. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would only be willing to agree if the "ecchi" series in question had depended on the ecchiness to advance the story. If you wanted more genres that describe the visual content, then why aren't we also having this debate for how artistic the work is, or how bishōjo/bishōnen the characters look (which I have also removed from the genre part of the infobox in animanga articles in the past)? Plus, we do try to to narrow down the genres to reduce repetition, but if ANN or a magazine review lists 10 genres for a series, does that give someone enough right to add all 10 to the Wikipedia article?--十八 11:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ANN has eliminated "ecchi" as genre and replaced "hentai" with "erotica". At one time, any registered user could edit the genres just as they can add them on Wikipedia, making ANN's genre listing unreliable. We also have to be cautious about the overuses of Japanese words when there are English language equivalents. I would like Joe to give an example of a magazine that uses these terms. --Farix (Talk) 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New reference library

We now have a video documentary reference library. I've started it with a few items, and I will add more as I have time. Feel free to contribute, though please include only documentaries or similar reference shows. Do not list every anime DVD you have which has an interview or documentary (perhaps we should create another page for that?). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing IMDB

While most of are articles are generally not affected by this, there we have articles on works, particularly licensed titles, where IMDB is claimed as a source. As such the project may be interested in knowing that there is a lengthy on-going discussion(s) regarding a proposal about citing IMDB, particularly whether it should be a citable source or all, and if so, what parts. Discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Voice Actors using pseudonyms

It seems a few dub voice actors have been known to use pseudonyms, and so are credited differently for different roles. Some have redirects, some don't. The question is, what is the best way to refer to them.

• By the name credited in the show credits
• By the name credited in the show credits, but using parenthesis to indicate their real/most commonly used name
• Using their real/most commonly used name with their credited name in parenthesis - i.e. "Real Name" (as "pseudonym")
• Using the real/most common name alone

I'm leaning towards the 3rd one myself, but the second seems almost as useable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, don't even think about it. Link directly to their pages, bypassing all redirects, not using pipes. Let local editors decide what name should be used for the actor's article. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it's probably better to use the redirect, that way your article can hand over responsibility concerning the correctness of the actors alternate name to the redirect. Piping should generally be avoided, unless the article's name hinders the flow of the prose. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats actually why I'm asking, the issue came up while working on Love Hina. I don't have the anime to hand, so was looking at referencing a web site, and discovered different crediting. I can always look for a different reference Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with real/most commonly used name, and a footnote noting they "credited as" in the notes section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When using it for mangika, their real name is listed and their a blurb about "under the alias XXX". After that usually their real name is used.じんない 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For credit lists where someone is listed in the credits under a pseudonym, pipe the link like this (to avoid redirects): [[Article name|Pseudonym]]. Then make sure the article you're linking to mentions the pseudonym as one of the names the person works under. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:R#NOTBROKEN says "there should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" and "this kind of change is almost never an improvement". I think using the redirects is better -- piped links introduce unnecessary invisible text. A good use I've found for using redirects is the What links here tool. With "What links here" you can easily find how a voice actor is credited. I've also used redirects when an article covers different topics. For example, using the redirect wuxia film (instead of [[wuxia|wuxia film]]), I can instantly know which articles linking to wuxia are actually films -- instead of novels or TV series. Or, for an example closer to home: X (manga). Since the article includes subsections on the film and TV series, I'd use the redirects X (1996 film) and X (TV series) for the articles Rintaro (who directed the film) and Yoshiaki Kawajiri (who directed the TV series). And if one day, the film gets its own article the links are already done and we won't have to go one-by-one to find what article actually links to the film instead of the manga. You can't do that with piped links.--Nohansen (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect explaination. 100% agreement. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters needing some help

I have made a little clean up in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters, but it still needs some work. The main characters seem to have reception available for their articles, but none of them use it.There are also several articles for minor characters, and most conception sources seem from fansites. Ah, the robots evas and angels have separate articles, they may require merge. I ll see if I can work there later. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gurren Lagann merge

There is an open discussion on whether to merge several articles into Gurren Lagann at Talk:Gurren Lagann#Merge. There hasn't been any actual discussion for weeks, but the discussion that was there failed to develop any conclusive consensus for or against the merge (and it should be noted that those voting against the merge mostly used nonreasons like size issues, ILIKEIT, and OTHERCRAP). However, recently several IPs and at least one user have removed the merge tag from the main article claiming that the discussion resulted in not wanting the articles merged. I'd appreciate some help with this. —Dinoguy1000 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for a merge, then removing the merge tags is appropriate. The discussion has had long enough time to develop a consensus. That doesn't prevent the discussion from going further, but the current proposal is dead. --Farix (Talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals don't simply die. If a discussion hasn't concluded in a result, which that discussion has not, then the discussion needs to be rekindled, not restarted. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If a discussion hasn't concluded in a result, then there is no consensus and the default is to keep things as is. --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion isn't an AfD. It has no time limit. If there is no consensus to merge or keep, then discussion goes on. It doesn't simply end with "no consensus". -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion might be closed as no consensus if it is ongoing for quite some time with good arguments and support for both sides of the discussion. None of these is true for the Gurren Lagann discussion - it has been quiet for weeks, and those opposed to the merge could present no good reasons not to do it. —Dinoguy1000 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single example of someone agreeing with the merge. All I see were comments for the merge to List of Gurren Lagann characters, so I changed a few things to reflect that. My apologies if this offended anybody, as this was not my intention. If my above statement is untrue, please show me where the comments are, because I'm pretty sure I haven't missed anything. DARTH PANDA^duel 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You can agree to the merge without agreeing to the exact terms. ;) That being said, the discussion was originally about merging everything to the main article, which is why the merge tag should stay there until the discussion concludes - so don't worry, you didn't offend anyone. —Dinoguy1000 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters

Please come and give comments for the project's latest FLC. Might I also mention that the main article, Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl is undergoing a peer review in preparation of a future FA nomination.--十八 11:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Naruto: Shippūden the Movie 3

Is there a need to have an article about a film which still has no information revealed? Should it be redirected for now?Tintor2 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Totally fails WP:NFF. I'd do it like the third Bleach movie and just redirect it to the appropriate section in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List of anime licensed in English

(copied from Talk:List of manga licensed in English#List of anime licensed in English —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

I've been intending to do this one for awhile now, but was planning on holding off until the major update work here is done. However, I always figured that we would need some discussion before making an anime list, so I figured I'd go ahead and start it a bit early. I'm anticipating a licensed anime list to be quite a bit more complicated than this one, due to the variety of media and release formats as well as the fact that (AFAIK) anime licensing in general has a tendency to be quite a bit messier than manga licensing, so we need to figure out just what information to include and how to structure the list overall. Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't refactored the comment at all, so read it in the framework of it being posted at its original location. Comments? —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What would the format be like? I mean, would the "Author" column in List of manga licensed in English be replaced by a "Director" column, or maybe by the producing studio? Could you maybe create a mockup of how you plan to do it?--Cattus ^talk 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just it - beyond the basic premise, I don't really know how this will ultimately work, hence the discussion. I'm frankly not sure if we want to note the director (especially since some series have different directors for many of their episodes), or just the studio; I also don't know if we should only note licensors or also networks the series aired on; and so on. —Dinoguy1000 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you always note the director, even if they are otherwise unnotable.じんない 20:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Like the director noted in the anime infobox? That seems best. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the production studio would be more appropriate than the director. Just my ¥2. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should mention both. A column for director and another for production studio. As far I know, many episode lists have both. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but mentioning director is a must. It is common practice in the industry to list the director for films and telivision series, even if they unnotable, you still mention the person in charge.じんない 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, we'll be copying directors from the infoboxes, right? What about noting licensors only vs. licensors + networks? And how should we treat various formats (OVAs, anime films, etc.) (the manga list, for instance, ignores light novels)? —Dinoguy1000 18:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think nothing the English liscensors would be a good idea. IMO, I don't think networks should be put down. I also believe that OVAs and anime films and the like should be ignored. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that licensor should be required, as this is more or less the meat of the matter, given the list name. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If the list ignores OVAs and anime films then it'd be a List of anime television series licensed in English, not a List of anime licensed in English. On that note, we could have separate lists for each media. Instead of an all-encompassing anime list -- which I honestly think would be a little hard to manage and a poor candidate for WP:FL -- we could have:

• List of anime feature films licensed in English (see List of animated feature-length films). The current List of anime theatrically released in America could be used as a start;
• List of anime television series licensed in English (see List of animated television series). The list of anime in the United States could be reworked to this end; and
• List of original video animation series and features licensed in English (see List of Disney direct-to-video films) Kind of a long title, but I think it's better than List of OVAs licensed in English.

On a list of TV series, I think the studio and (Japanese and English) networks should be listed. With a list of films, the director is a must, along with the original release and English language release dates. With OVAs it's a little trickier because some series are not released regularly while others are one-shots.--Nohansen (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the separate lists. One list would probably be too long. --Cattus ^talk 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of data you're trying to put into one table there ... —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the existing lists, they should help (at least a little). —Dinoguy1000 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So let's see here... So far, we seem to agree that there should be three lists (anime TV series, OVA series and specials, and anime films), in which case the generic title List of anime licensed in English should probably act as a disambiguation page (if anyone disagrees with the titles, feel free to make suggestions). All three lists should note original Japanese studios and directors, and English licensors (besides the obvious English, kanji and romaji titles), and the film and (maybe?) ova lists should note release dates... Any other details we should include, any tweaks, etc.? —Dinoguy1000 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What would lists of anime made up of TV episodes and OVA episodes be classified under? Often those lists might be combined for shorter series.じんない 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean anime television series and OVA series, respectively? It sounds like you're thinking the lists would link to individual episode lists. This isn't the case, and having several related series on the same page would have no impact on the lists beyond maybe linking to a section of an article instead of the article as a whole. —Dinoguy1000 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gantz characters list

There has been a discussion in Talk:Gantz#Character list that aims to merge List of Gantz characters in Gantz. Feel free to participate.Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Grr...I normally support TTN's efforts, but lately he seems to be going overboard! This is at least the 3rd or 4th anime series he has attempted this on. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Character lists

What warrants a character list for a series? AnmaFinotera has stated that all series the majority of series deserve character lists and that it is the general consensus of this project. My opinion is that it should be a case by case basis dependent on mainly style issues (though sometimes notability may be a factor). Two recent merges I've done that have been reverted know include Mx0 and Gantz (see above). Mx0 is a canceled series with a limited main cast that fits in the main article without any cruft. Gantz is an ongoing series, but it also has a stable cast after the first few story arcs. The characters fit in the main article perfectly fine. The only thing that character lists do for these series are allow cruft to build up, rather than allow the characters to be described in greater detail than the main articles would allow.

Now, various shonen series like Naruto, Bleach, and One Piece have a large number of characters that could never possibly fit in the main article without size issues. They hold various relevant details, while still keeping off very minor characters and other cruft. These are cases where it is obvious that these lists need to exist. How do people view that? TTN (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "ALL" I said most. You are wholescale merging lists without any discussion, tagging for issues, etc. You just decided that you didn't like the list and removed it. Everyone that you've challenged has been upheld when challenged (and that's been way more than two). Note, members of the project may always want to discuss his undiscussed merging of List of Zoids: Chaotic Century characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

These are generally dead articles, so it is usually very surprising that anyone actually pops after I edit them. So far, the only reason that these have been kept is because people are too used to character lists, which is why I have started this discussion. Just like with the mass amount of television episode articles, they have been around for most series for a long period of time, so most people cannot fathom them not existing. Nobody has actually pointed out how the lists provide a better detailed description of the characters so far. Can you do so? TTN (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like WP:NOEFFORT. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging isn't deleting. And he is in no way using the inactivity of the articles as a reason. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not having active attention is not a valid reason for you to wipe it clean. Below you admit you are completing ignoring notability and all relevant guidelines. Are you trying to end up back at ArbCom again? Why not focus on merging in all of the insane episode and individual character articles that are not notable instead of wiping out legitimate character lists. If you think a series shouldn't have a character list, start a discussion rather than just wiping it. And, FYI, almost all of the lists you've merged HAVE been reverted, and I've already shown you before that just because the page needs cleaning doesn't mean you just wipe it. Tag it and move on. There is no deadline for fixing articles, and we (the project) are going through as best we can. You are NOT helping by wasting our time with this inappropriate merges when there are tons of legitimate merges of individual unnotable characters just waiting for someone to deal with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm being bold, not wiping them out for no reason. There are times when a topic is notable, but it still is better to contain it in another for style reasons. For example, many single film character are mentioned in a number of reviews, and they could logically have a reception section larger than that of the Gantz list. Obviously, they fit within them main article well enough, and piling on the reviews would just be undue weight. I would really like to see nice, clean articles (just to note, I still don't consider the Wolf's Rain list necessary at all) than just leave them because you won't even consider an alternative. TTN (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically he's right. According to the merging guide you really don't have to propose a merge before you perform it, you just act boldly then if there's a revert you discuss it (bold/revert cycle). However, it also cautions users against making potentially controversial changes without discussing it first. You're liable to get people mad at you when you really want them to be on your side. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Character lists are a WP:SS and WP:SIZE issue. If it's necessary for understanding of the plot and can't be conceivably fit into the main article without loss of comprehension, then a character list is appropriate. Generally, the grand majority of series should have a character list largely because the character cast is large enough to justify it. I'm also surprised that you want to merge lists that prove independent notability for the characters such as List of Gantz characters; if the characters can independently demonstrate notability, then this is all a moot point. They meet WP:WEIGHT because of that and coverage in a list is definitely appropriate at that juncture. The notion that lists shouldn't exist because "cruft builds up" is ludicrous. It's like saying we should get rid of an article because it's being vandalized. It gets excised in the course of regular editing. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When people don't even give a proper character section a chance, it is fairly hard to actually gauge what is necessary. I'm ignoring notability right now. Remove the bad details from the Gantz character list, and you have a character section for the main article. That reception section can then easily be added to the main article without any issues at all. TTN (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. Fix up the character list per WAF and you have a list that would make an extremely bulky character section in the main article (as in a third of the article). Give the lists a chance. Not all lists get on the same level of List of Naruto characters in a fortnight. That you're choosing to focus on character lists with significant reception sections and not other cruft-filled sections of Wikipedia astounds me. Go direct your energies somewhere else. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is 5kb extremely bulky for an article that should reach somewhere above 30kb? If I go ahead and replace the current Gantz list the appropriate amount of detail, which is 5kb of fictional details not counting any sort of references, what should happen to the list in that case? TTN (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How the hell do you know the appropriate level of detail when you haven't even read the series? And where on earth is this 5K figure coming from? If anything, when the material is properly written per WAF, the total amount of text ends up being roughly the same, and then you add refs and more conception/reception, which pushes the article's size to 40-45K. That's mergeable without loss of comprehension or context? Yeah right. I have great respect for your passion in clearing out cruft-filled areas of Wikipedia, but this is definitely a bad use of your abilities and time. Pick your battles. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read up to the current chapters of the series a few weeks ago. Are you under the assumption that I'm out of my element here or something? The 5kb comes from my original merge of the list into the main article. Those details are the details necessary to understand the main cast without any plot details, which the featured chapter list covers. Your estimate of the size seems to be what is off rather than mine. TTN (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulky as in if I have to scroll to go down the entire character list in the main article, it's too long. In any case, per Juhachi, a character section would ultimately be removed and split out if the article went to FA, and Lain is an old FA from before the current anime MoS and practices were created. Seriously, go focus somewhere else. You clearly don't have consensus here to merge the list, and you're going to end up blocked if you continue. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly random piece of criteria. If the list is like three or four time the length of the Serial Experiments Lain list, I agree that is too much content, but we're talking about three flicks of a mouse wheel. Just to note, you believe that character list should be split out of that article then? Seeing as I am not edit warring and I am following BRD, how would I be blocked? TTN (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(reply to TTN) Except if Gantz was taken to FA, which in that case would mean most likely the plot and character sections would be merged into a singular plot section (see Tokyo Mew Mew), or at the very least a small character section with one or two paragraphs discussing the main characters in the series. From what I've seen, character lists never work in higher-ranked articles, so if you want an article to improve, this is the logical road you take, and if you do that, a separate character list then becomes essential. The way I see it, TTN, you're not looking at the big picture here, or rather, you're looking at how redundancy and cruft can be eliminated, but you're going about it the wrong way, especially since you haven't discussed this before hand when it should have been obvious there was going to be opposition about it.--十八 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What should be done in the case of Serial Experiments Lain? It seems to work out fine, and it only has a few less characters than these series. Should it be split out just because? TTN (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(mostly reply to opening post) I'd like to see, where the statement, that "most series deserve character lists" has been established as "general consensus of this project" as that would be news to me. Anyway, do I understand this right? We are talking about character list already satisfying WP:N? In that case, I have to agree with Sephiroth BCR, in that it is "a WP:SS and WP:SIZE issue." -- Goodraise (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even past that, an unwritten consensus (largely hashed out in AfDs and random discussions) is that character lists are generally acceptable per SS and SIZE regardless of whether there's notability if it's necessary for significant coverage of the series. That's why a good chunk of series have their own character list; that and it's a useful merge target for the cleanup group when they're going through character articles. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He twisted my response - I did not say all series deserve anything. Here is the direct quote: "A single list of characters is a perfectly reasonable subarticle of a series, particularly for a series of this length." - nothing like what he implied above. That said, in general, a series is likely to be able to support a character list, within some actual reason. Now, a 2 or 3 volume manga series with no anime adaptation, I could support a character list merge (and have done so before). But a 24 volume on-going manga series with two 13 episode anime adaptations? TTN appears to believe that only series the insane lengths of Bleach, Naruto, etc can support their own lists, when its already been shown that even a 7 volume manga series can have a well crafted, potential FL quality list. For most series, yes, a character list is valid, and where its questionable, there should be discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bleach and One Piece were used for their number of characters mainly. When I used length as a basis in the other discussion, that was just to generalize things; it was a fairly bad criteria example. I don't know if Tokyo Mew Mew needs a character list or not (the fictional details seem like they could be cut down by a ton), but the length of the series shouldn't have anything to do with it. It should have to do with "Can these characters and any real world details about them fit adequately within the main article without causing stylistic or length issues?" To state that a series like Gantz requires a character list without even going over that question just seems like a giant copout in a way. TTN (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What it sounds like to me is that you're saying that there should only be characters lists as extreme exceptions. While WP:MOS-AM is pretty harsh against numerous individual character articles (for good reason) it has pretty much been the consensus that this is a valid way to keep the size down on main articles. "If the character section grows long, please reconsider the amount of detail or number of characters included. Beyond that, a separate page, named List of (series) characters, may be appropriate." -MOS-AM. Yes this is a target of fancruft, but to place such lists on main articles is to make the main article subject to this kind of unnecessary detail; and as mentioned earlier, it's almost necessary when cleaning up an article that has many offshoot character articles, as you can't skim through all that info in just a day or so of editing. I almost exclusively edit character lists for the very reason that they tend to get ignored. There's a ton of work to be done, but simply merging a few sentences and deleting the rest isn't the right solution. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be on a case by case basis. For example, I see no real problem with Air Gear, Berserk, and Rurouni Kenshin having lists, though they definitely need cleanup. It isn't the existence of cruft that it the main problem; it's that the only real beefy content is going to be cruft or redundant plot details. That is the deal with Ganzt and Mx0 in my opinion having recently read both of them. TTN (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's a draft proposal of an essay on fictional character lists to be included with WP:FICT, here. Just thought it would be relevant to this discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters

List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters is currently a FLC, but it needs more activity. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class, for real

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The decision was: Deprecate, with the possibility of revisiting the issue in the future.

---

We've had the option to assess articles as A-Class for years now, but only two or three of our articles have ever been assessed as such, and those were back in 2006 or earlier. Past discussions about overhauling our assessment scheme back when C-Class was implemented suggested that there was interest in keeping and using A-Class, but since then, there's been no such activity and more recent discussions have leaned in favor of dropping A-Class. So, once and for all, do we want A-Class, and if so, will we use it and will anyone commit to being A-Class reviewers and/or trying to get articles towards A-Class (from GA, of course)? —Dinoguy1000 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (too lazy to look up the old discussions), part of the issue was we couldn't seem to agree if A should be between GA and FA, or if A should be above FA, and what purpose A would serve above/beyond GA/FA which are more widely recognized? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well for comparison, on the default assessment scale it is between GA and FA with basically the difference only being between a FA and A seems to be formating.じんない 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I confess I'm totally uninterested in complicating the scale still further by also using A class. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that it would be better to use it, it would give us another step between FA and GA so you'd be better able to see an article's progress. If we implemented it, would it be easier to get an article to GA knowing that there's another step before FA? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it would make it easier. GA criteria are completely independant from the project, so that wouldn't really play in to anything. it would make it easier to get an article above GA if it can't pass FA or isn't ready for FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class is really meant from what it seems to be a transitory state between GA and FA in that the issues that would seperate it from GA would be cleanup of any copyright issues, length and structure. Really though beyond cleaning up copyright issues I can't see the main difference though because GA is suppose to heavily deal with that.じんない 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'd be horrified to see a GA article with any sort of copyright issues. That's rather scary :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright, not quite. Even B class requires all copyright/fair use issues to be resolved. G.A.S^talk 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When i read the description of GA, A and FA articles that stands out as the biggest issue that differentiates them since everything from B-class on upward deals with structure and length.じんない 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I never really liked the idea of A-class to tell the truth. Its supposed to be in between GA and FA in terms of quality, but since it's led by individual projects, it doesn't get as much notoriety or regulations to make it mean more than a GA when editors already have to go through tons of loops to get a GA passed nowadays. Technically, it should be harder to get an article up to A-class, but perhaps no one cares because they see that shiny FA star waiting for them right after they get an article passed for GA and that's what they shoot for. In all seriousness, I believe A-class should be demoted on the project scale to be under GA since it's a project's own assessment of an article, and therefore does not involve outside editors not familiar with a project's guidelines.--十八 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what i think. It should have been below GA-status or at least a parallel rating. It shouldn't be higher than GA imo though.じんない 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The only use of A-class is when we have a rigorous review process for it that preps articles for going to WP:FAC (the WP:MILHIST A-class review is perhaps the model of this). Past that, I don't see any use for it, as we're generally not going to have any sort of formal review process with enough participation (or to be honest really, enough quality review for the purposes of FAC). If people want feedback for FAC, they can open a peer review. I would simply not recognize it for the purposes of the project. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with sephiroth bcr here. We just do not have the manpower or interest to perform proper A class reviews at the moment. (Though I am willing to commit to performing reviews; is anybody else?)

I would not bother with demoting A class below GA, since we have already upped our B-class requirements, which makes our B class articles quite decent already; the line between either A/B or GA/A will be just too fine (the large gap between start and B class being the whole reason behind the recent introduction of C class). On the other side, there might be use in identifying and rating our better GA articles as A class (as a precursor to a effort to improve them to FA class).

I would actually recommend a !vote on this. (2 Votes. Keep/Deprecate; and if keep, where does it fit in).

G.A.S^talk 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate. We simply don't have enough reviewers, especially any copy-editors good enough to push something to FA-quality prose, which is probably the most valuable type of reviewer for FAC. Peer reviews are fine. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate. I also agree, there just aren't enough reviewers nor any real need for this. I think our current classes are enough. Any article that is GA should, by nature, be able to be taken to FA with varying degrees of effort. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Depricate. I don't see a point to an A-Class, nor do I see the feasability of gaining enough reviewers for it. DARTH PANDA^duel 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Depreciate. Looks like a solution in search of a problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate. I don't see the benefits. It's not like we have so many articles close to FA that another step would be useful. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate, for the reasons already said. We can consider it again at such time we have proper candidates where B, GA and FA is clearly not appropriate. G.A.S^talk 04:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate, with the possibility of revisiting the issue in the future (even though I previously stated I have no opinion on the matter ;P ). —Dinoguy1000 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While reading through the above comments (what a can of worms I've opened! =O ), it occurred to me that perhaps we're viewing A-Class the wrong way. While it's true that we don't have the manpower or (apparently) the interest to use it on articles between GA and FA, what about using it on list articles (e.g. chapter, episode, etc. lists) on their way to FL? Currently, in this area, the most use I see for it would be on character lists, since these seem ridiculously hard to get to FL (given that currently List of Naruto characters is our only FL character list). And before anyone says that our assessment scale states that lists skip A-Class, let me point out that I wrote those list assessment instructions, and skipping A-Class was an arbitrary choice on my part without the benefit of past discussion. Of course, this isn't to say I'm trying to argue in favor of A-Class - like many other issues, I could care less, and I'm just looking for resolution here. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea, but what would A class on a list cover that B already doesn't? (and really agree...we need more FL character lists!) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the majority of lists (episode/chapter lists), the gap between a bad episode list and what is required of an FL gets crossed very quickly. It's the reason we don't have GLs (good lists). The biggest obstacle for these lists is getting someone to go over the prose for the summaries, which still doesn't justify an entire review process. For character lists, that's obviously an entirely different beast, as the sheer amount of sourcing and prose necessitates a good copy-editor to go over the article. Remember though that List of Naruto characters is by far on the high end in terms of character lists in terms of size and depth due to the length of the series (and thus the large character cast). A lot of character lists are going to be significantly shorter, but do remember that the average size for a character list that has a legitimate chance at FL (in other words, has sufficient conception/reception information) is going to be on average 50-60K, which is pretty big. That said, I don't think an A-class review is good for what here, as what is key for character lists is a good copy-editor to review the prose, which we really don't have. Depth of coverage is something that we can address, but we can still do in a peer review. In any case, having an entire process for one type of list seems excessive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From what i understand from some other projects attempting to grapple with this, A and GA are meant to be separate; you can have an article be A and GA or A and FA at the same time.じんない 17:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, it would require a separation of the List/Stub/Start/C/B/A and GA/FL/FA scales that isn't present anywhere on Wikipedia at this time (AFAIK). I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just pointing out the absence of separation. —Dinoguy1000 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Jinnai: This was considered at the same time the introduction of C class was considered; but nothing ever came from it. I do not believe that A class is widely used, but it seems that the better assessment departments uses it for articles that are already A GA class, on the way to FA class (i.e. WP:MILHIST). There is still wide confusion about A class, though. G.A.S^talk 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen it is commonly used and those projects not using it now (or not using it much now) are moving towards integrating it in somehow. It by those that do use it used in addition to GA and FA a lot because GA and FA are non-project reviews. A/B/C/Start/Stub are all in-project reviews.じんない 05:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

By not widely used, I meant this. There are more than three times FA than A, and more than seven times GA than A class articles. I should also mention that I know of projects who uses it instead of GA class articles (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) G.A.S^talk 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are obviously some variations out there. Since the question was never raised before it's obviously being raised now about how this project should handle it. My stance is have FA/FL/GA separate from A/B/C/Start/Stub. They represent 2 different types of assessment.じんない 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The current thinking is to deprecate the use of A class mainly due to the lack of manpower in doing the assessments. (See above) G.A.S^talk 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How much is needed? Considering the size and scope of the project and it's impact on Wikipedia (anime was last year the most looked up item behind general research, and not by much), that kind of decision shouldn't be taken so lightly. I don't see beyond an initial wave of reviews how this would seriously hamper things since the review is done by the same people that do B-class assessments. It just requires more than 1 person and somewhat stricter guidelines than B-class.じんない 06:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Would you be willing to find a list of candidates? This discussion will be much easier if we have actual examples. G.A.S^talk 07:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it all depends on how we want to do stuff. We could always grandfather in all FA class articles and possibly all GA articles. As for B-class artilces, Naruto Uzumaki might be a good example of one that could be ranked A-class by this project before going to GA. If you're wanting to use it as a bridge (though I don't support that idea so much) Air might be a good example as well (the latter had been mentioned to try having some cleanup to move it to an FAC).じんない 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the usefulness of this. The only reviewers I can imagine would make such a process somewhat meaningful have a ton on their hands whether in WP:ANIME/CLEANUP or making GAs/FAs/FLs of their own. It's one thing to ask for commentary on peer reviews and another thing entirely to have an entire process with regulars that comment on it. There's no one that can give substantial commentary for prospective FAs, especially in regards to the level of prose required. And making it a stepping stone to GA is rather pointless as well because the people who are already bringing articles to GA are familiar with the quality level and don't need to go through a process before GA. The primary use of A-class is a stepping stone to FA in which it acts as a glorified peer review, but seeing that we don't have the reviewers to give the article that boost up to FA-quality, there's no point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am with Sephiroth BCR on this. The examples are of high quality, but are not out of place in their current class. G.A.S^talk 07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with A-class is that the content is meant to be "complete" - the people most likely to be able to assess that in terms of the manga and anime project's articles are the ones who are already working on the articles and seeking the assessment. --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2008 (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.

IP user crazyness

I've reverted two/three (depending on perspective) edits on Love Hina by a unregistered user. Apparently ANN is "unprofessional blogging" and 'doesn't carry more clout then any other anime website" and so their reviews shouldn't be used (they are simply being removed). After the first 2 reverts I left a message for them explaining that ANN is considered to be a reliable source and is used on many high quality articles, and left a link to the project page if they wanted to discuss it. However it was just done again a short time ago by a slightly different ip. I've no doubt that its the same person and will copy the message to the new ip too. I don't want to stumble into 3RR so I'd be grateful if someone else can keep an eye on it too Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doh...that guy is back again? Revert as vandalism and report if he keeps it up. He's been around before, I believe, and been blocked under a few IPs already. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy is new to me but I am tacking on an additional part Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like he is changing IPs daily, so may be back. If it keeps up, may need to do a WP:RPP since he seems to only be focusing on that article, he may just be an annoyed fan not liking those particular reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah, edit conflicting my talk page notice :( :P Age vandal hasn't been back since I redid the character section though! Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the series covers at least three years. I don't thing giving the character's age in this case is appropriated. Unless you are implying that the character's don't age over the course of the manga run. --Farix (Talk) 12:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Four if I recall correctly, but the bulk of the series happens over 18months-2years then "does a naruto" and the epilogue is 2 years after the previous chapter. I did have this discussion with AnmaFinotera who offered several suggestions when talking about redoing the character section. Removing the ages and identifying them by "high school student" etc doesn't seem any more suitable either for much the same reason. I'd rather leave the ages in, but if someone offered a suitable alternative that would improve the article then I'm happy to hear it it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the ages off since it is trivial information. --Farix (Talk) 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Same edit by a registered user, all signs point to it being the same guy. I cant keep reverting it (for 3rr and also potential "ownership" issues ), so I'd appreciate some opinion on the acrual text being removed. I'm posting from my phone at work so I can't really do any major editing or adding new content such as alternative reviews Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he is still at it. I've reported him to AI/V and requested protection for the page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WAF

An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of True Tears episodes

Please come review or improve this. I have nominated for FLRC due to the fact it has absolutely no real-world information.じんない 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Specific episode articles

I came across a article dedicated to a single episode of Ranma earlier - Boy Meets Mom - Part 2: Someday, Somehow.... I submitted it for speedy deletion for copyright violation as it was just a text dump from tv guide.com with an infobox. The speedy was denied, but the admin processing it removed all the text, leaving the infobox and lead. The user who created the page has since restored the text claiming he is the author. I can confirm the user and the user on tv guide are the same.

I was instead going to AfD it for notability issues, however I wanted to check the desirability of dedicated episode articles. My assumption is that although it is notable within the Ranma universe (its the last episode of the tv series), it has next to no reliability out-of universe. At best merging it into the episode summary at List of Ranma ½: Ranma Forever episodes seems the best thing to doDandy Sephy (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect/merge it to the episode list, tag the image for deletion, and explain to the creator that individual episodes are not generally notable. In the anime realm, in particular, the Pokemon episode is about the only one I can think off of hand that has any actual notability for having its own article. Any others should generally be redirected to the appropriate episode list, with summary merging as appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect and I'm in the process of leaving a note on the OC's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 11:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Boku no Pico to be merged to Boku no Pico (series)?

I was wondering if all or part of Boku no Pico should be merged to the series article. What do you all think? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What series article? There doesn't seem to be anything to merge it to, and Boku no Pico appears to be the overall series name. Is this related to Moocowsrule's question at: Talk:Boku no Pico#Move?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Boku no Pico would be the name of the first OVA, but there are four, and they're not title "Boku no Pico 2" or such. It's related to that, but I don't think that many people visit the page, considering it's content and all... moocows rule 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that moving the page would be more effective than merging it... :/ moocows rule 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first series whose "sequels" so to speak had different names. They all appear to be related and part of a single unnamed series that starts with Boku no Pico. As such, the first title's name seems to be the most appropriate to use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the official Natural High AnimeOnDemand page lists each one as シリーズぴこ 1, シリーズぴこ 2, with the rest as a subtitle.[1] So the series name appears to be Shiriizu Pico? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That means "Shirīzu Pico" "Series Pico 1", "Shirīzu Piko 2" "Series Pico 2". Those are to tell which episode it is, not the name. The names are there too, "ぼくのぴこ" "Boku no Piko" "My Pico", then "ぴことちこ" "Piko to Chiko" "Pico and Chico". There appears to be a CD called "Pico to Chico CD "Ijiri CD"". But I think it could be "Pico Series" instead of just "Pico" or "Boku no Pico series". moocows rule 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are specific episode names. However, the official name itself appears to be Shirīzu Pico as it is on all of the covers under the title. The CD is a related media and doesn't affect the name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to AnimeOnDemand. According to the website they're just known by the names. "Shirīzi Pico" means "Series Pico", or to make it more grammatical "Pico Series". moocowsrule 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is still a series name, and the covers of the DVDs all list Shirīzu Pico 1, Shirīzu Pico 2, and Shirīzu Pico 3, making that the series name. So if the article is moved, I it should be moved to Shirīzu Pico. Anyone else want to weigh in here? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the main website not just AnimeOnDemand's site. If it were to be moved to something, it would be moved to "Series Pico" or "Pico Series" because that's the Japanese way of saying "Series"... moocowsrule 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AnimeOnDemand is the same company's site, but I'm also looking directly at the DVD covers themselves. Using "Series Pico" or "Pico Series" would be an English title. As this is not a licensed series, the romaji should be use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Since "Shirizu" is the same as "Series" (ja:シリーズ), there's no reason to use the romaji. For related examples, see Air Master (Ea Masutā), Alpen Rose (Arupen Rōze), Attack No. 1 (Atakku Nanbā Wan), Attacker You! (Atakkaa YOU!)... and that's just the A's!--Nohansen (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Air Master is a licensed series :P But okay, in that case should it be Series Pico or Pico Series, or Moocowsrule's suggestion of Pico (series)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well why did we use "Junjo Romantica" instead of "Junjo Romanchika"? I've never seen Boku no Pico called "Pico Shirīzu". In any case I thought we used an English term if it was a loanword? I mean it's obvious "Shirīzu" means "Series" so why not use "Series"? And why not just use "Boku no Pico (series)"? moocowsrule 02:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I don't even get the question on Junjo Romantica which is completely unrelated, and is licensed in English so it is using its English release name. Boku is not licensed and is very unlikely to ever be licensed. And it is obvious that Boku no Pico (series) would be inaccurate when the series DOES have a name, whether you have heard it called that or not. Either "Pico Shirīzu" or Pico Series, however you want to call it, that is the series name. Where do you get the idea that we use the English term if it is a loanword? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ·contribs) 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen transliterations put into English terms, as that's what it means. Before Ouran was licensed, it was known on here as "Ouran High School Host Club", and I believe before Junjo got licensed it was still "Junjo Romantica" (the Ouran thing has little relevance but it's true :/). In the Anime and manga guidelines it always says "Anime title (series)" or something like that, so since "Pico Series (series)" makes no sense at all, it should be "Pico (series)". + Could you rewrite the summaries? I've always been bad at writing summaries... :/ moocowsrule 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. Almost no series articles use (series) at all. See below. I can't do much about the summaries when I've never seen the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean from what's already there. I'll try translating stuff from the Japanese page. moocowsrule 03:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese page uses "Shirīzu Pico", so I guess the page should be "Series Pico". moocowsrule 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the cover and it shows:

ぼくのぴこ

MY PICO

シリーズぴこ１

Boku no Piko

MY PICO

Shirīzu Piko 1

But I think it should be "Pico (series)". moocowsrule 02:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Pico (series) on the cover, its Pico Series or really Shirīzu Pico. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that really matter??? I mean it means generally the same thing! moocowsrule 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does as it determines what it used throughout the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As Nohansen said, I think it should be "series". + Per the WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation it should probably be "Pico Series (anime)" or "Pico (anime)" or something like that... moocowsrule 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be "Pico Series (OVA)" or "Pico (OVA)" or something like that. moocowsrule 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't need to disambiguated from anything if its Pico Series, which is appears to be, it would just be Pico Series, period. Disambigs are only added when necessary, not by default. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read it... I should probably read it before using it as evidence... :/

whatever... Why don't we just use "Pico Series" per WP:MOS-JP#Names in titles? moocowsrule 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean "Series Pico"... moocowsrule 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of English or Japanese covers in infoboxes

I think I had brought this up with AnmaFinotera a while back, and lately it's been bothering me again. In such articles as Vampire Knight and Tokyo Mew Mew, the Japanese cover of the manga volumes is used in lieu of the English-version covers. I was wondering why the original covers were preferred for the infobox image, as that image is specifically meant to be used as an easy identification of a given series, and correct me if I'm wrong, but for a manga licensed and published in English, wouldn't the English covers be more recognizable to the people who are going to be reading these articles? It doesn't really help them when they can't even read the titles of the images they are looking at (assuming most readers of these articles have no knowledge of Japanese). Not to mention that at least for those two examples, the English versions are not so different from their Japanese counterparts. I feel that if a manga/anime/light novel is licensed and published in English, then the English cover of the manga/DVD/novel should be used instead. I also feel that this is much in the same spirit of how we use official English names for series and characters due to their role in being the titles/names to be most easily recognized by the general public.--十八 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese covers are the first covers, hence their being preferred. Same as with novels. You don't use the "favorite" image nor the most "popular" image, but the first cover where available as the original identifier. And as most of the English covers are the same as their Japanese counter parts, they are still very readily available. From my understanding, the current general overall consensus in compliance with various guidelines and related MoS is that the preferred image order for manga is: Japanese first manga volume, English first manga volume, last Japanese manga volume, last English, any other Japanese, any other English. This makes perfect sense to me. I see no reason to negate the original just because we primarily emphasize the English. We use the English names, but we don't neglect to mention their original Japanese counterparts. See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Image for infobox. If this were a major issue, it would have also been brought up in the FAC for TMM, but it was not questioned at all, despite it clearly noting that it is the original cover. (and BTW, your example is sort of off considering the original Japanese cover DOES include the English words Tokyo Mew Mew as well :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, that thread on the talk page of the MOS was about use of logos, which has already been resolved. Second, I don't see where this perceived preference of the original cover comes from, as there is nothing in the MOS to suggest it. And while the English name may be visible on the TMM cover, it's very small, and to tell the truth, I didn't even see it until you pointed it out because of how much larger the Japanese text is. If this thread serves to show consensus on the use of original covers, I'll propose an update to the MOS about it.--十八 03:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a fairly recent discussion regarding infobox images, so noted in case that logo thing up again. See below for the relevant links to related guidelines that all note a preference of first cover. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I do recall there being a WP:BOOK or WP:NOVELS preference for using the first cover from the country of origin. I recall this being mentioned in relation to the Harry Potter articles. However, I can't find the exact guideline or MOS that covers this. I'm not sure how well that will work for our mixed-media style articles. Though personally, I prefer a colored cast shot or promotional artwork and have a disdain for logos. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For novels, its Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Infobox: "The image presented in the table should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. For example, sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the "preferred" edition." Its also noted in the various infoboxes. From Template:Infobox Book: "Image (prefer 1st edition - where permitted)" and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate: "image = ~file reference to the image ideally named after the title of novel~ (n.b. first edition cover if available - and permitted)". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The first edition preference only covers English-language editions. In practice, foreign-language books use the first English cover, not the foreign cover—see The Shadow of the Wind, The Club Dumas, Ignorance (novel), and Molloy (novel). It is backwards to insist that the art used in our infobox should be in Japanese when we convert everything else to licensed English-language editions, which is why I assume WP:VG decided to use English covers (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 6#The Final Fantasy series and the infobox images, for example). I think we should follow their example. —tan³ tx 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is this actually stated about novels (not practice, which is not useful when people regularly ignore guidelines and when we ourselves are currently doing all of the above)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a natural extension of the "use English" guideline. It doesn't have to be specifically stated for novels just so it can specifically be stated by us. —tan³ tx 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If its a "natural extension" then why is it not explicitly stated anywhere? Foreign films use the original posters/cover, not the English one: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." There is not a single note there that "if its a foreign film, do the English DVD instead." Same thing with novels. Nowhere anywhere in the novel MOS does it say, "for foreign books, use the English cover." Again, I see nothing supporting this being a natural extension of the "use English" guideline, which does not say "pretend the item was never released in its original language." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Finer-scoped Manuals of Style state exceptions and variants, not things that should be obvious from the general Manuals. I certainly hope WP:FILM and WP:NOVEL trust editors to do the right thing without having to hold their hand.
• What about "use the English cover" equates to "pretend the item was never released in its original language"? The image isn't a replacement for the first sentence of a article, it's an aid to help English readers identify the work in question. —tan³ tx 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the original cover is less identifying than the English? We aren't here to identify for the purposes of "here, go buy it in the store", but "here is a graphical representation of the work." By your argument, novels idea of using the first cover for books is wrong, because for many books, especially older ones, the first cover is not going to be what they find in stores. Ditto films. Why use the film posters when the DVD covers are "newer" and what more people might recognize, especially for older works. And which English cover shall we use? The American (showing this is really an issue of Americanism), or the Chuang Yi covers which are often released before NA releases for those they license, or the Madman ones? How about the UK covers? The original covers are identifiable, represent the actual first form of the work, and are neutral. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as which English cover should be used, no one is suggesting that it should be a North American cover every time. We should chose the most recognizable cover for an English-speaking audience, no matter which licensed cover that is. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The easy and short of it: Use the English cover that has contributed to the work being most widely recognized in the English-speaking world. Is this not just a correlation of the article title guideline: use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world? How is it that you can back other "use English" guidelines, but not when it's something like this?--十八 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue of "use English" but an issue of "use the first/original cover" and what makes a more appropriate image for use in an infobox. We don't use the most current cover of magazines, even if it is "more recognizable," rather we use the first cover where available. We use the first images of films (posters), regular books, and all other novels. Why should manga be different? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the whole point of an infobox image is to have an easily identifiable image for the article to help in recognition in the series. It doesn't take some huge mental leap to assume a manga published and released in English is going to be more easily recognizable by its English cover on the English Wikipedia than some obscure Japanese cover 99% of readers won't ever see in their entire lives.--十八 03:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, how is the Japanese not an "easily identifiable" image. Almost all publishers USE the original covers, just replacing the publishing marks with their own. How does that make them obscure? Its the same damn cover, one with the original language, one with the original language replaced with English. 99% of series ARE easily identifiable from either cover, and in those cases where the cover is dramatically changed, it should be covered in the article anyway. Nor is the purpose of the image to be an identifier as in "oh, I recognize that." It is to give a visual representation as in "here is an idea of what it looks like" i.e. for ALL people, not just the American readers who might recognize the cover from seeing it in a store or a review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the cover, but in my experience the japanese covers can be harder to figure out. True a lot of covers are barely changed when they are translated, but some japanese-language manga I see in the store isn't even remotely recognizable. I don't think anyone's trying to make a blanket statement that "all japanese covers are less identifiable than the English covers" but I don't think there is any reason to require a Japanese cover. (no one is saying that they should be updated each time a volume comes out either) Editors should have some latitude in choosing the best cover image. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my ¥2: I think if a series has been officially released in English, using one of the English language covers should be preferable here on the English language Wikipedia. Otherwise, one of the Japanese covers should be used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think tan³ has demonstrated that there is a precedent for using the english cover, at least on other projects. The Japanese covers might be interesting, but the image is supposed to be used to identify the series; most English fans are probably not familiar with the japanese cover. So the English cover would do a better job of identifying the series, plus the fact that most of them would have the title as part of the image. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's poke at that logic for a moment. Suppose there's a manga series adapted as an anime, and the anime has been licensed but not the manga. Our project's strongly worded guidelines that we focus on the original format suggests use the Japanese vol 1 manga cover. By the logic of English version for English encyclopedia, however, suggests that instead an anime image, either logo or DVD cover. Which is a conflict. My reading of the WP:NOVEL guideline, which is consistant with our current guidelines, is that the original cover should be used barring circumstances that strongly suggest otherwise. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That wouldnt be the case because we're talking about which manga cover to use; an anime adaptation wouldnt be the original medium and would be irrelevant for our purposes here. The question is whether to use the most easily identifiably english cover or the original japanese cover. The MOS requires the original work to be the main subject. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer using the English cover, but Quasi raises a valid objection. Then again, in cases such as that, look at how we treat the article's title - it is to my understanding that we name the article after the primary media type, regardless of whether a significantly important adaptation has been licensed while the original has not (for instance, the Pani Poni manga series is unlicensed, while its anime adaptation, Pani Poni Dash!, has been licensed and released in English). So in cases like that, I'd say we would still use a cover from the original media type - the licensed cover could still be used on the appropriate list. —Dinoguy1000 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —tan³ tx 21:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think using the official English cover is a logical extension of using the official English names, and was a little taken aback to see staunch naming crusaders arguing in favor of the Japanese covers. The only times a Japanese cover should be used is when the original format for the series is not licensed. Doceirias (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be absolute. While it might be rare, a Japanese cover might be more well known. Wikipedia is not bound by what corporations want to put out. However, there should be clear evidence to support using the Japanese cover over the English cover in such as case.じんない 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support using the Japanese cover over say, a bilingual manga, or one of those weird Singapore English editions. They're just too obscure. Doceirias (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is, editors should be able to choose on a case-by-case basis (by consensus of course). We shouldn't be forced to choose one type of cover as long as all manga articles use a cover as their image. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just like other reoccuring items in layout, naming, etc. there should be a default standard. Exceptions can be made, just like everything in Wikipedia, but editors should have to have a good reason for putting one image up rather than another.じんない 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the default is that some editors want to use the default as a reason not to use another image. I don't think "we always do it this way" is a valid reason. The choice of cover should really be a discussion about the images themselves and not about policy (unless an editor is trying to do something really weird). A valid argument should be something like "Cover J doesn't give a good visual representation of the series and only has japanese text, cover E has the english title and a picture of the main character from some of the opening scenes". I would reject an argument like "Articles X, Y, and Z use (this language) cover. The precedent is clear, we must do the same here." --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

So reading through the above, I see reasonable arguments for both sides, but don't have a sense of what the consensus is -- except possibly that there isn't one yet. Is it time for a straw poll to verify this? By way of laying cards on the table, as it were. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So the question is really, which should be the default? So go ahead an cast your votes below; we can continue the discussion above, or below. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An English cover as a weak default, but allow exceptions (I don't support requiring changes in existing articles, but each group of editors would have the option to change the cover) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support English covers as default, with exceptions being required to give adequate reasons - I don't want people saying "Well it says by default, but I just don't particularly like English cover, so I'll use Japanese one instead." There should be legitimate reasons such for such, such as English one not being notable, recgonizable, or other signifigant changes such as removal of a large portion of the image (although in the latter I'd support using a cover from another volume of the English first if it's notable).じんない 08:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support this option as this is the English WIkipedia and the English cover, if available, should be used by default unless there is some special reason for an exception. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with some caveats: my own opinion is that cover choice should more closely conform to our naming conventions where reasonable (if the series is licensed in English, use the English cover; if licensed by more than one company, use the cover that has contributed most to the series' fame, etc.), and as I recall, where there are significant differences between the English cover and the original Japanese (at least for manga), we typically show both on the article (or at least chapter list) to illustrate how the cover art changed (see for instance List of Rave Master chapters). —Dinoguy1000 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support as a logical extension of the use English guideline which this project uses in mass with regards to series' titles and character names already, so why should using an English cover (if available) be any different?--十八 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - with exception given when only official English versions are obscure Asian publishers. Bias arguments be damned - it makes sense to prefer covers from the major Western manga publishers the same way we default to their naming standards. Doceirias (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Support 1st volume Japanese covers as default, 1st volume English only where decent quality Japanese is unavailable - the first volume of the original Japanese is the original work and by all relevant guidelines is the image that should be used in the infobox. It is the best identifier of the work as a whole, not just the English version, and the most neutral image to use. I see no valid reason the Anime and Manga project should exempt itself from these image use guidelines just because people like the English covers better. (if this "poll" still shows there is no consensus, would like to see an RfC opening discussion to outside viewers) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind no one ever said it was just because they "liked the English covers better".--十八 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support this. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There were no guidelines starting the preference, just various wikiporjects deciding themselves.じんない 16:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No Default Seriously, why do we need to codify a default image for the infobox? This is very much instruction creep. If we state a default, no matter how week of a default it is, there will be people who are going to wikilawyer about it when another image is used. Which image to use in the infobox should be based on the consensus formed on that article's talk page and not arbitrarily determined by the WikiProject. For example, it is my personal belief that promotional images showing the main character(s) make better illustrations for the infobox then a book or DVD cover. --Farix (Talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this should be up to editors on specific pages to decide. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's a licensed 1st volume cover, a manga article should be allowed to have English or Japanese covers. Neither seem patently inappropriate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So what's your take? You seem to conflicting statement here.じんない 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Me? It should be clear that I'm against a default, it should either be a weak default, no default at all. If there's a question as to which cover to use, I think editors should consider a cover first volume of the most recognizable licensed English version. But I think ultimately it's up to consensus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 13:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Farix. I don't see the need to codify every single, insignificant detail related to articles within the project's scope (i.e. a default image for the infobox). This seems more like the kind of stuff that's better left to WP:COMMONSENSE.--Nohansen (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

COMMONSENSE is anything but common; it depends on culture, age, beliefs, etc. - see also WP:NOCOMMON. It's great to use common sense here if your bearing is on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but most casual editors working from a common sense angle will be using their own view of what is common sense, which inevitably leads to problems with stuff like this. That combined with the ultimate triviality of this issue means that even two editors using Wikipedia common sense could arrive at very different conclusions for what should be used. —Dinoguy1000 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No default; per reasons given. G.A.S^talk 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll Results

Okay, so it looks like we're more or less evenly divided between "use English (when exists)" and "no default". In other words, no consensus -- which means no default by default.

Should we make this explicit on the MOS? Something like "Use either Japanese or English cover or logo as seems appropriate" ? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus earlier that logos, for the most part, were not particularly helpful? Manga should use a cover (Japanese or English) while anime/movies/etc should use a promo image, poster, or DVD cover, and games use game cover? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- I had a brainfart there. So more like "Use either a Japanese or English cover or promotional image as seems appropriate" then. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.--十八 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Quasirandom. G.A.S^talk 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as long as its clear that if the article already has an appropriate first volume cover, one shouldn't go switching languages out of personal preferences (i.e. don't want to pop on one morning and find all the articles I've worked on switched to English because some people feel it is "more appropriate".) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say this falls under the "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style" rule. But I believe this goes further than "first volume": The first volume's cover does not always illustrate the concept of the series properly. Note (1) that novels usually have no other illustrations available of the concept, making the first cover an obvious choice and (2) that the subject of the article is the series/"franchise" as a whole, not the first volume, (3) which is not the first publication in any case. I.e. I fail to see what makes the first volume any more appropriate than the previous image here. G.A.S^talk 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the first volume is not the first true publication, but its the first available for use here, and either first or last is a neutral selection instead of an editor's personal opinion on which volume of the series is the "best" one. The purpose isn't to illustrate the series concept, but to provide a visual identifier of the series. Most book series articles either use a first cover or a collection image (which, isn't really an option for most of our stuff unless someone shoots one themselves, and for a lengthy series, it would be a practically useless image). As for OMG, surely you don't feel that having a movie poster on the article that is not even ABOUT the film (which has its own article) is more appropriate than the manga cover that the article is actually about?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"To identify the series" is actually the crux of the issue. Does the volume cover really help identify the series? Can you identify a series from a random page from the manga/scene from the anime (showing e.g. the main characters) by looking at the cover?

If the purpose was to identify the series, surely a logo would surely be more suitable? (As is done with most articles about airways, companies, etc. etc?)

As for OMG, more appropriate, maybe not. But I do not believe that it was any less appropriate, either. If the image is captioned properly, it serves its purpose. (The question/remark was actually rhetorical.)

Now if we were talking about chapter lists/episode lists/film articles, this is a different argument entirely, as there is a unquestionable relationship between the image of the first volume, or the promotion image, and the article.

G.A.S^talk 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can identify a series by looking at the cover, because that is the form you buy it in. I'm not talking about identification as in "oh, I found a page of a series, what is it" but a visual identifier as to what the article is about. We don't put a picture of a Hershey bar on the Hershey article, we put a picture of the wrapper, i.e. what people see first. As for company logos, those are more appropriate than any other image because that's how the company's identify themselves, with the logos included in all ads, literature, etc. Completely different issue. You don't identify regular books by random pages, you look for specific covers. Books in a series, if you know the first cover, you can usually find the rest in the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could not quite find your Hershey example... In my opinion, your point about "Books in a series..." is more applicable to Chapter lists (mutatis mutandis to episode lists), not the main article. For the main article a more representative image may be more appropriate than the covers. G.A.S^talk 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of times in long-running serializations that the first volume rule doesn't adequetly sum up the whole, but rather is just a snapshot of the early conception.じんない 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if its an early conception, it is still the one that the majority of people who look for the series will look for. Most folks aren't just going to look for some random midseries volume, they want to start at the beginning.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And you base "majority of people" on what evidence?じんない 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Common-freakin-sense. Manga, as a whole, is not a medium that lends itself to someone just jumping in midstream. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then i'd say you'r wrong. The "majority of people" will look more for later volumes, not the original as their first and most obvious point of what the manga is about because that is likely how they will be introduced to it from someone, but a random or latest edition. Only after then would they be more likely to look at a first volume. Therefore I do not by your "common-sense" claim that first volumes would be more important and should be held up on some pedistal as a paradigm.じんない 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't games fall under the manual of WP:VG? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we seem to do more with visual novel type games (like Air (visual novel)) than the VG project does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Staying out of the above fracus, about about this wording: "Use either a Japanese or English cover or promotional image as a consensus of editors feels appropriate"? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about "consensus of editors"... it needs clarification(a rewrite).

Maybe just add "editors should not change an article's infobox's image from one guideline-defined option to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere personal preference." (That is if there is a choice between equally appropriate cover images, e.g. Japanese and English releases' first covers).

Also note that the image should be appropriately captioned (if this is not noted yet)

G.A.S^talk 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of publication in manga infobox

What date should be used in the original run field? Date of release or cover date? For example, Demon Prince Enma was published originally in Magazine Z in the number of 2006-05, but the magazine itself was released in 2006-03-25. For older manga, it would probably be almost impossible to find the date of release, but for recent manga it is possible. In some cases, the date will change the year of the manga. The oneshot Satsujinsha from Nagai has a cover date of 2008-02 but it was originally released in 2007-12-26. Which one should be the date used in the infobox and when classifying chronologically? Jfgslo (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The original serialization date should be used first if it can be found. If not, a simple month-year, or even year of release will suffice until more specific information can be found.--十八 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The cover date, rather than actual date of release. Publishers, east and west, often distribute things a month or something more before the nominal date, but the later should be used (a practice that dates back at least to the 18th century in England, that I know of). Either a date or serial number is fine, depending on what's available. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the cover date should be used as that is most likely what someone would use to locate the issue. People rarely remember the actual release date, and even more rarely do they use that to catalog something. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The cover date of the magazine it was serialized in, as release date is both nearly impossible to find and not particularly accurate as subscribers get it at different times than stores. The cover date is also more accurate in terms of looking up the information and being able to confirm to the source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't say I really agree, since using the cover date is misleading if a manga was first serialized in the March 2003 issue of some magazine, when actually the magazine was first sold in January 2003. And what about editors who later try to add in the more accurate information of serialization date opposed to what the issue says? Should it then at least be noted in the prose that "The manga X was first serialized in the MONTH YEAR issue of MAGAZINE, which was sold in MONTH YEAR / on MONTH DAY YEAR? Of course, if it was said like "The manga X was first serialized in MAGAZINE in MONTH YEAR..." then people will either assume that the date given is the cover date of the magazine, the actual date the magazine was first published, or be left to wonder which it is. A perfect example of this is in Tokyo Mew Mew where I read: "Tokyo Mew Mew was first serialized in Nakayoshi magazine between September 2000 and February 2003." This doesn't tell me if these are the actual dates in which the magazine was published, or merely the cover dates attributed to the issues, meaning the actual dates are a couple months off, which as I said is misleading to the reader, and can cause confusion if not explicitly specified which date you're talking about. On the other hand, an actual month-day-year is not ambiguous.--十八 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We're talking here about the infobox though, not the prose. Your right in that the prose should not be misleading, but if we go by what general consensus is that won't confuse the reader as well. Normally this would be the date on the magazine cover, irreguardless of whether it was issued 1 month or 3 months before. When they read the article more explanation can be put to the fact that the "original run" was the serial date and the magazines were published a bit before then. FE, Shojo Beat lists the publication date in the box, but in the prose it says it was first released in June.じんない 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

TMM doesn't tell because the source in use doesn't tell. That isn't anything I can help, and the only reliable source, ANN, has used both. When possible, I would specifically note "between the September 2000 issue and the February 2003 issue" which is exactly what all articles should use (and pretty sure that is the case for TMM, but going to check the volumes to be sure). The date is going to be confusing either way if it isn't specified if its issue, and few people speaking of a magazine would actually think someone meant the date the magazine was released rather than the cover date of the issues. Almost all magazines are "released" well before their publication date, and this is generally common enough knowledge that a series article should not note this, only the magazine's. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd get a response along these lines. I think that's assuming too much to think that it's "common enough knowledge". Case in point: Maybe I'm just ignorant about magazines in general, but I've never known this to be common knowledge that magazines are released well before their publication date, as I remember get many magazines years ago that were not like that, and I don't remember ever reading a magazine like Time or National Geographic Magazine that was like that (but as I said, maybe I've just been ignorant to this all my life). Whatever the reason, Wikipedia articles should not assume too much, especially when accessibility has to always be taken into account (it being one of the six points on the B-Class criteria to boot). And it worries me how you said "almost all magazines" since what are we supposed to do for the "few" exceptions that release their magazines the same month as their cover date? Is that just a special exception case, because frankly I think it'd make more sense to have a universal way of doing things. Not that that's gonna happen, but still.--十八 08:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't subscribed to Shonen Jump or the like? I know I got January's issue of Shojo Beat on December 3rd. :P Though you are right, some folks don't notice because people rarely look at the cover dates unless they actually need to reference it (like we do). That's one reason the cover date is better, and more universal. Then it doesn't matter if the magazine is released early, same month, or even late. The date on the cover is what its official "date" is. Only with daily/weekly magazines are they likely to be the same. This is also in keeping with general practices for filing, sorting, cataloging, whatever you want to call it magazines. I have never seen a library, index, etc list a magazine by release date, it is always by cover date. You don't order back issues by release date either, but by cover date.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's common practice does not mean it should not be noted. For someone seriously looking up information, both the monthly issue and original date it was released are important. The monthly date because that's how they are classified and the original release date because that can be used in some cases to determine what and why certain items were said in an article. While Shonen Jump being mostly manga might not be so heavily article-based, most magazines are and citing an article that talked about the impending release date of some product of next month in Decemeber when the article is classified as Decemeber without the context of when it was released to market will just confuse anyone not knowledgeable in the magazine itself.じんない 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am really concerned with one thing about using the cover date in the infobox. The gap between the cover date and the publication date is quite large (2 or 3 months), and using the cover date would make the date quite possibly inaccurate for the dates that a manga is ran between. There are also magazines that would also list the publication date (in the end of the magazine saying when the next will be published). Moreover, there are instances where a magazine doesn't even have a cover date (at first), but is instead listed by volumes. I am wondering what should be done to the few series that began its run when it doesn't have a cover date, and ended when it does have a cover date. Now feel free to flame me and leave me unfocused for my finals. -- クラウド６６８ 16:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I note, btw, that when I've checked the dates listed by a tankobon of when the serial numbers were published, it has listed the cover date, not the actual release date of the magazines. This is a stunningly large dataset of two, admittedly, but they were from different publishers. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same in volumes I've seen it noted in as well, as well as on the English release sites if it talks about initial releases (and/or in press releases, etc). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading all the responses and checking American comic books in this Wikipedia and some manga in the Japanese Wikipedia, I believe it is more common, logical and manageable to use the cover date instead of the actual date of release. There is a small detail in the Japanese resources, though. The always use the kanji "号" to indicate that the date is for the issue, not the actual release date. It should be similar to using "#2008-05", for example. These are the ones used in the lists within a Tankobon. In American comic books, the cover date is used in the infobox and then in the text of the article is added the information related to the actual release date, such as in Action Comics and Detective Comics. Since it would be really difficult for old manga to find the actual date of publication, I think that the cover date should be used and if the release date is available, a note about the real date of publication should be added within the article, at the beginning. And I'm assuming that when sorting chronologically, we should use the cover date (Satsujinsha then goes to the category of manga of 2008, even though it was published at the end of 2007).
However, it is possible that new problems will arise when using the cover date. Although not common and Tankonbon exclusive manga won't have this problem, there are some magazines (specially the weekly ones) that have a double day for cover date, for example, "2001-08-21·28", which means it is meant to cover both days. Also, some cover dates are really vague and say something like "Summer 2006" or "2006 vol.5", etc. The main problem with these is that it would be difficult to standardize them with the rest of the publications and media in Wikipedia, which use more or less accurate dates (like videogames, films and books articles). How should should they be handled? Jfgslo (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We should still note in the prose the release date even if the infobox just has the cover date as Wikipedia uses the most commonly notable and verifiable information to be unbiased. So as long as the release dates are known or in general can be verified that they are released earlier, it should be noted in the article itself.じんない 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New Articles

Extremepro (talk · contribs) apparently decided to start going through the requested article list and start making articles for them all. Not necessarily a bad thing, except they are fairly lacking in any real info other than what he's pulling off ANN, including straight copying of the plots from their articles (so those are being CSDed as copyvios). He's also including non-existant fields to the infoboxes (like pages in the manga boxes), not doing any categories, and making other "typical new editor" errors that could use cleaning up. Anyone want to help go back through and help fix these up? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no WP:CSD for these types of articles. I guess you can prod them using the argument that they do not assert any form of notability. We have enough articles on non-notable manga and anime, though it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, this editor is adding to the problem. --Farix (Talk) 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my other concern, is many of these do not meet even our expanded notability standards. I've CSDed the copyvio ones, but not sure which of the rest should be prodded or tagged for notability. Ugh...I'm also finding errors, like a month's off wrong date for B.O.D.Y (manga)'s ending (despite ANN's own article having a link to the ending article), volume count, and no mentions of English licensing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up. At the time I posted the initial message, I also left some notes on the editor's talk page. While he has been editing, he is declining to respond, though he seems to have noticed at least some of the fixes being done on his articles (while ignoring others). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another update on this issue. Extremepro seems to be sort of learning, maybe. He has slowed down the article creation, though when the non-notable ones are deleted, he tries to readd them back to the request list. He's started going through some of the stubs he created and adding slightly reception info and volume lists (with me often running behind him to fix referencing, formatting, etc) This has resulted in some rather odd stubs, such as Shinobi Life‎, which has not even a single sentence plot summary, but has a volume list. The bugger issue, though, is that he does not appear to be doing any sort of fact checking at all, and is just basically filling in these stubs from ANN and maybe Amazon listings, presuming its all accurate. He listed Asu no Yoichi! as licensed on the basis of an Amazon link, despite no licensing announcement or any RS reporting Tokyopop had picked it up. He's also regularly linking to sources at animenewsnetwork.com.au, but none of those links work for me at all, and he is still continuing to copy/paste plots from ANN and I suspect from fansub/scanslation sites since he's tried linking to them too. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

images

i am geting a message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fairy_Tail_members saying to remove some images but when i do they come back. how do i get rid of the message ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.28.140 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Likely because you are editing as an IP and did not use edit summaries, your attempts to correct the list were reverted. I have restored your removal as you did a good job with it. Greatly appreciate you tackling the problem there, though in the future, make sure to note what you are doing in the edit summary so people understand why you are removing content. :) I also left a note on the talk page to explain the image removal. To the project as a whole, might be a good set of lists to look at, as it seems there are FOUR character lists for this relatively short 12 volume series, yet List of Fairy Tail characters itself is nearly a stub as is Fairy Tail. That seems very excessive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've tagged the character lists for merging, smushed the separate "story arc" list, and done some general clean up on the chapter and main articles. Could use some series love if someone feels like a big project. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some assistance is needed at List of Fairy Tail members as User:Gune is continuing to revert the appropriate and very needed removal of the excessive nonfree images from this list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not again >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but this time he combined 3RR with incivility and was blocked for a few days, which has hopefully fixed the problem and can let folks maybe discuss the proposed merges :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gantz wiki

I thought this has already been discussed, but is it good to use wiki for external link? Its used in Gantz and the character list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Only if the wiki/wikia meets WP:EL, which most don't. In general, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was discussed as long as it has at least a decent level of editors (not 2 or 3) for the whole wiki, not the page itself, and there are no edit wars (which is what is generally meant by stability) or nothing there is illegal, then it meets the EL guidelines.じんない 18:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The EL criteria are stronger than that. See other discussions on Wikia links at WP:EL. "Decent level" is open to interpretation, and lack of edit wars does not meet stability. Nor can one claim that the Gantz wiki has an established history of reliability (also a requirement). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It qualifies for #4 on "Links to be considered" and Wiki pages do not show up as one of those in "Links normally to be avoided".じんない 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Link to be avoid #12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." - note the substantial there. Wiki's have also consistently been shown to fail #2 ("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.") and they are, in general, nothing more than fansites. While it does NOT meet #4 at all. It is NOT a site with "meaningful, relevant content." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Substantial does not mean for the particular page, but for the site as a whole; also substantial is ill defined. If it did, we couldn't link to most wikipedia pages. As for "factually inaccurate" i will agree with you there on, but "unverifiable information" is often plot related for fictional work and therefore the assumed parent material is what the article is itself on, which is how a lot of our GA/FA plot/characters sections are done.じんない 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia links are not external links so that wouldn't apply either way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel (http://www.2chan.net)

Futaba Channel has been nominated for deletion. I figure this is peripherally related to manga and anime, since they seem to have dojin being produced within the imageboards... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely shocking. Thanks for the tip, although it's a lot more then "peripherally" related. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add the project banner to the talk page then... it is Japan, software (imageboard software), internet culture, and website wikiprojects right now. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel was deleted, but there were more keeps than deletes, and the closing admin said he'd be willing to userfy it somewhere, and would not challenge a DRV request. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT - creator commentary equal to critical commentary

It seems to be the case that for proving fiction's notability, sufficient creator commentary is considered equal to critical reception of a work. (with the proviso seeming to be that works should be significant - not something made up one day.) It strikes me that if this goes ahead, the anime-manga manual of style would need updating? --Malkinann (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that is not the case. Creator commentary is RS for filling in articles, but it is not equal to critical commentary for notability purposes. Anyone can create anything and throw some creator commentary on it without it being notable. Where is this discussion taking place, since I'm not seeing anything in the current Fict version? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The question has been raised on WT:FICT here and here. --Malkinann (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Read, and neither seems to say that creator commentary is equal to critical commentary. Critical commentary can establish notability, creator commentary alone can not. So not sure that any thing would need to be updated here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? That's not my impression at all... :/ Having both development information and reception information is regarded as ideal, yet there is a move to make WP:FICT more inclusive than the GNGs - ie. that articles can be WP:IMPERFECT and that they should be assessed on their reasonable likelihood to improve rather than their current state. Of course, the MOS should be regarded as a good example of current practice, but if development information is regarded as being able to support a claim to notability, it should be noted in the MOS. --Malkinann (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea is the make WP:FICT more balanced, and it is clearly noted that creator commentary alone is not a claim to notability, at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Story of Saiunkoku

I had occasion to visit the The Story of Saiunkoku's set of articles today, and found that they were in pretty bad shape. The main article is almost exclusively anime focused, with only a basic list of ISBNs for the original light novels and the manga series. The episode list was horribly out of date. I've redone the lead there and attempted to clean it up some, but its missing sources on air dates and some summaries. The character names were the worse issue, with most using fan preferred spellings over the English names because they didn't like the changes Funimation made. I've since attempted to correct these names, but I haven't seen the series yet so I could only work based on the website. Can someone more familiar with the series go through the articles and make any additional corrections that may be needed? I've also tagged three individual character articles for merging back to List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters. Views at Talk:List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters#Merging appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

D.N.Angel Character list

Apparently TTN couldn't wait to allow the merges to proceed properly, and recently redirected ALL of the D.N.Angel character articles back to List of D.N.Angel characters rather than actually doing any merging, completing ignoring the existing discussion. This wasn't appropriate, as there is an existing merge discussion and seeming consensus for real merging, so the redirects were undone. He has now AfDed most of the character articles, despite again their already being slated for merging and already even in the cleanup groups "to do" list. The AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risa Harada and the still existing merge discussion, which so far has consensus to merge most, if not all, is at Talk:List of D.N.Angel characters#Merging character pages -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to this continuing issue, I have requested that ArbCom extend TTN's restrictions. As he is particularly concentrating on Anime/Manga articles, and Video Game articles, I have listed both projects as affected contributers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters

After months of leaving it on hiatus, I created a list of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters. However, it still requires the chapters titles and I dont have them. Could anybody add them? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have most of the back issues of Shonen Jump, so I can provide most of the chapter names for most of Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! Millennium World (something I've been meaning to do for some time), but I cannot provide the tankoubon divisions or a chapter list for YGH! Duelist, and some of the chapter names may have been changed between SJ and the tankoubon. —Dinoguy1000 18:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

User:LOTRrules nominated the episode list to FL, although in the talk page we discussed that summaries need rewritting. Most notably, he reverted the summaries to an old revision without templates and dates relinked. Could the nomination be withdrawn?Tintor2 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Up to the nominator. That said, it would take a superhuman effort to bring it to FL-quality now, so a line of opposes is the most persuasive method. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What's with the bizarre formatting on the list itself? And the main article at the top pointing to that article and the talk page? Looks like it needs some major clean up by someone who knows what they're doing. Doceirias (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... This is not going to end well. I suppose it's possible to get this to a FL by January (and I would be highly willing to join a project to do so), but in its current state, there is simply no way this will pass. If only FLs were that easy to obtain, eh? DARTH PANDA^duel 01:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean up the list now and switch back to {{Japanese episode list}}. Unfortunately, a previous attempt to clean up the list was completely reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3)

Hi, I just nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) for Featured article review on the basis that the episode summaries are far too short. This is part of my larger issue with what should be a FL and what shouldn't be a FL based on episode summary lengths, so if I could have some clarification on that here, that'd be great. Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 01:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn this nomination, but I still feel that this needs to be expanded. Sorry for the trouble. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging a featured article?

Not something I would normally bring up, however the issue has appeared concerning the Lupin III articles.

There were separate articles and episode lists for the 3 lupin tv series. A few days ago someone tagged, Lupin III Part II and Lupin III Part III for merge into Lupin III (anime). Another user had a different opinion, rightly in my opinion suggesting that it would be better to merge the season lists into the main articles. They botched the merge for the original series and Part II so I've corrected them to the more logical method. So far, so good and I can't see any major issues with the merging.

However Lupin III Part II presents more of a problem. Currently the main article is rather lacking in content, especially after unsourced material has been removed. The various episode lists for Part II are all FL however so I've told the person who started the merges to leave them alone. The question is, should List of Lupin III Part II episodes be merged into Lupin III Part II and resubmitted for FLC for "consistency"? or should it be left as it is and Lupin III Part II improved? I prefer the leaving it alone option due to the current status of the lists and also size. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really seeing no reason for Lupin III Part II and Lupin III Part III themselves to have separate articles at all. Those really should be merged to Lupin III, particularly when they were all released in the US under the name Lupin III (and why does Lupin III (anime) have a disambiguate when there is no apparent conflict?) For the episode lists, splitting along the part lines and having List of Lupin III Part II episodes split into seasons is fine. I think, however, as a whole it should have a single List of Lupin III episodes, that splits out into List of Lupin III episodes (series), then the individual List of Lupin III Part II episodes (season x), and List of Lupin III Part III episodes using transclusions and the {{Japanese episode list/sublist}} template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Only one of those 3 seasons is available in english, and then only half of the episodes. Hence the disambiguation as the second series was released simply as "Lupin III" in the US, and then only half of it. The first and third seasons were never licensed. But then after looking I see the disambiguation is no longer on the article, do you mean the "(anime") bit? I'd say there is a perfect need to disambiguate seeing as Lupin III is about the franchise as a whole. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They are still all the same storyline essentially. There is no substanital difference between one season and the next. I mean the major differences highlighted seem to be Lupin's Jacket, which to me makes it look like they should all be under 1 section. The episode lists should under 1 list with sublist articles for each season.じんない 16:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't actually SEEN any of the 1st or 3rd series, have you? Trust me, the three series have some similar types of plots (some), but are very different in terms of artwork and tone. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) If the anime isn't significantly different from the original manga, there shouldn't be a separate anime article, much less three. In which case, all three should be merged too Lupin III, with links off to the episode list(s) as appropriate. Those ep lists should have, as noted, a main list with splits off to the appropriate sublists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'll defer to others, any other time I bring up Lupin (it's not the easiest franchise to cover according to suggested guidelines) no one has anything to offer... Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of series aren't the best covered by that. The guidelines can be adapted to fit certain needs, but nothing here really shows how Lupin III the TV series differs from Lupin III the manga.じんない 18:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference (the manga is darker for a start), the problem is reliable sourcing to show this. While Lupin is taken as being "popular", for english language audiences, this doesn't really apply outside of the movies and ovas/tv specials. Theres very little reliable sourcing in english. if there was, the articles would be better developed. 05:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs)

Just noting that if List of Lupin III Part II episodes is merged anywhere (such as a larger episode list of the series article, although I have no idea why you'd want to do the latter), it will need to be submitted to WP:FLRC for removal of its featured status. Local consensus can't remove the featured status, but the FLRC itself will be fairly uncontroversial (and thus closed early) if there are no outstanding objections to the merge. Commenting as one of the FLRC directors. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Also noting that for the episode list to be split into seasons, it must be converted from {{List of Anime Ep TV}} to {{Japanese episode list}}(/sublist) - a change that certain editors have in the past found highly controversial. —Dinoguy1000 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just as easily make a sublist wrapper for {{List of Anime Ep TV}}. —tan³ tx 21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that {{List of Anime Ep TV}} should be phased out in favor of {{Japanese episode list}}. {{List of Anime Ep TV}} format can be replicated by {{Japanese episode list}} if editors really want that format, but I believe that {{Japanese episode list}} is cleaner anyways. And there is no point in having two templates that does the same job. The only reason it is controversial is because of a single editor who defends this template tooth and nail. --Farix (Talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here... and this fact was repeatedly pointed out to the editor in both the deletion discussions, but they still argued to keep the template. As for a sublist wrapper... I really don't see the point, since any effort to clean up a list using {{List of Anime Ep TV}} will probably entail swapping it out for {{Japanese episode list}} anyways. If someone else wants to write the wrapper, be my guest, but I'm not gonna do it. —Dinoguy1000 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've converted List of Lupin III Part II episodes to import the four season sublists. The seasons were already split off some time ago and using {{Japanese episode list}}, making any controversy with "coveting" from {{List of Anime Ep TV}} mot. I've also removed the "merge" tag which was added yesterday because merging such a large list, even with just the episode titles and airdates, is ridicules. --Farix (Talk) 16:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Shugo Chara! episodes

I'm planning for the eventual push for List of Shugo Chara! episodes to become a featured list. But before doing so, I would like some other editors to give the list a good copyedit. I still need to review/rewrite the episode summaries past episode 44. --Farix (Talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Check ""True Self" (ホントのじぶん, Honto no Jibun?) is the ending theme for the first twelve episodes, "Renai ♥ Rider" (恋愛♥ライダー, Ren'ai ♥ Raidā?) for episodes thirteen to twenty-six, "Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!" for episodes twenty-seven to thirty-nine, and "Do Your Best and Go!" (ガチンコでいこう!, Gachinko de Ikō!?) for episode forty to episode fifty-one." The structure is awkward. DARTH PANDA^duel 23:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ranma 1/2 episodes

I've started a discussion at List of Ranma ½ episodes concerning the episode listings for that article and the sub articles. Essentially the current format has 3 separate episode listings for each table (aside from the first season). I'm of the opinion that the changes are easily described in the leads for the articles (and already are in some or all cases), and the current format only serves to confuse as the official english release is much simpler. Anyones opinion is welcome and requested. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the numbering? I think the "season number" could go; as for two sets of episode numbers, I like how List of Sailor Moon episodes does that. --Masamage ♫ 18:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon issues

User:DranzerX13 continues to attempt to make splits of the Blue Dragon anime series from its video game article, despite numerous warnings and the split articles being deleted. He is making these under bad names, such as Blue Dragon(anime) and Blue Dragon(manga) and ignoring all attempts at discussing this with him. As the anime/manga is not significantly different from the game, there is no valid reason to have such a split, and the anime already has an episode list. I've CSDed both articles, but he keeps recreating. Project assistance in watching/responding to this issue would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article itself, the anime "ignored most of the game's plot", so there should no problem with having a separate article on the TV show.--Nohansen (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is an unsourced claim and no discussion has taken place to really flesh out if it actually does "ignore the game's plot" or if people just weren't happy with it and stuck the line in because of it. Either way, discussion should occur first, and the article's he's making are useless with bad names and bad content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bad" article names are easily fixed... the editor either made a mistake in spacing or couldn't figure out how to edit Blue Dragon (anime). "Bad" content, too, can be fixed; there's no need to chastise the guy.--Nohansen (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He repeatedly did it after warnings, attempted discussions, etc. Has nothing to do with ignorance, from the responses he finally began making. Also, other editors have also chastized him for the split, agreeing it was inappropriate. See Talk:Blue Dragon(anime). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Whether you feel the split is justified or not, the edit war should be a concern as well as the decelerations of WP:OWNership and general incivility by DranzerX13. --Farix (Talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)He's been blocked 24 hours. Meanwhile, looking at the plot summary he used in the bad article, it doesn't seem like the anime is that significantly different, it leaves out the land shark parts and uses different voice actors, but otherwise is the same basic plot and characters. I'm not seeing hugely significant differences (noting I've not played the game myself). This doesn't seem much different from what is done with some other game to anime adaptations that have shared articles (or even some manga to anime adaptations). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has seen the anime and played the game, view points at the discussion Nohansen has started would be appreciated at Talk:Blue Dragon#Blue Dragon (anime) to discuss whether there is a significant enough difference to warrant split consideration. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters

Hello, fellow members. I've been trying to get this list up to FL for a couple weeks now, and I've come to am impasse. No matter what I try to do myself, the article needs other editors to copyedit the list if it's going to get promoted. There are five short summaries in the article that need copyediting.--十八 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a note to let you know I asked Mfaith1‎ if he might be able to CE it as he recently CEed the FMA chapter list. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, he declined as he isn't familiar with the series. Anyone else? This list is so close to FL, it just need a CE! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What is "CE"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after posting. :p ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the series, but am currently a) rebuilding my system after a hard disc crash and b) about to head out of town for the holidays. If you don't find a CE by next Monday, tap me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a CE still needed? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the last FLC, I'd say yes. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So it seems. I'm still mired in computer woes (tho' at least I'm getting back from the shop today) but I can take a stab in a little bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--十八 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There -- except for one detail (I don't have immediate access to the last volume -- possibly tomorrow) that's as good as I can get it. Well, I should reread it next week after a break, but otherwise, consider my copyedit complete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I filled in the missing detail for you. Hopefully now it'll become an FL. Just in time too, because we can all come back after I cleanup Pita-Ten in January.--十八 01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Real Robot

Is the Real Robot article within the scope of this project or the VG project? It seems like it is spawned from the SRW series, but now it has became a genre of anime. MythSearcher^talk 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It began with SRW to describe an anime-based element. So why not both? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem at Yusei Fudo and Akiza Izinski

• A user, Beejay1234 (talk · contribs) insists on adding unsourced speculation about the relationship between these two Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. He says he has a source, but refuses to link directly to it, and instead just keeps re-adding the speculation. What is my recourse here? JuJube (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's continuing to ignore discussions, rv as vandalism (either OR or introducing deliberate factual errors) with escalating warnings, then report to AI/V. Bet his "source" is some fanfic :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion manga volumes

I created this list from the Evangelion manga series. Does anybody have the titles from the manga angelic days? Also, does anybody know sources of the evangelion manga published by Viz during 1998? The lead also needs some work, so could anybody give his cents? (Was that the phrase commonly used to help?) Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

'two cents". Looks good so far, I'll take another look in a minute. I wish Sadamoto would hurry and finish the damm thing, 13years is a joke...Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Project consolidation

At WP:VG we currently have a task force that is aimed at consolidating and organizing video-game-related WikiProjects and task forces. A lot of this means merging or moving overlapped projects to task forces of our main project. This is good for less active projects because it gains them attention and grants access to our main project structure/resources/editors. This is also good for active projects for the same reasons, but in this case also benefits WP:VG with more members to help with peer reviews/cleanup/general discussion. We even had one specific instance where the process was greatly helpful in (somewhat) stabilizing a project that started leaning towards edit wars and calls to WP:ANI.

The reason I am bringing this up is that projects that a venn diagram of our two projects often pop up, and if this sort of cleanup work group sounds like a good idea for your project, then that would make a great collaboration point. I am merely offering it as a suggestion. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting the Anime and manga project become a task force under VG? If so, that would be a big no. Not even close enough to being related as a whole to even consider. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm glad you were clear. NO, I mean it might be a good idea for you guys to make a similar department for project cleanup. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... :) Reading it again with that in mind, and looking at the task force page (should have done that first, eh LOL), its a good idea to me and something I've also advocated to a lesser degree several times. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be made a part of our cleanup taskforce... It would just require someone finding a wikiproject and listing it there somewhere, and then we could bring the topic here for general discussion if necessary. (BTW, what ever became of absorbing WP:O-Parts Hunter? —Dinoguy1000 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just absorbed it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So I see... Good job. —Dinoguy1000 20:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever arrive at a conclusion regarding WP:GUNDAM? G.A.S^talk 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Other then, merge if WP:GUNDAM wants to merge, no. The problem being is that WP:GUNDAM is just barely active that its one or two members didn't express an opinion or supported the "merge if the others in WP:GUNDAM wants to merge" position. --Farix (Talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a call for boldness. Just absorb, and see if anyone reverts. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. That now leave WikiProject Sailor Moon --Farix (Talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. :) Several active members, already working with the anime project, like our name, etc. --Masamage ♫ 23:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously support SM also being task forced, but strongly suspect its members will allow it to happen without a fight. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Returning to WP:GUNDAM for a minute, should we also merge its talk page banner into our own (after a reasonable amount of time to make sure no one objects to its absorption)? —Dinoguy1000 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Can add a task force param to our banner for it to compensate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See! Now, if you guys take Digimon and Yu-gi-oh, we'll take Pokemon. We already have visual novels, so I think it evens-out. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I don't think any of those three need merged anywhere... Pokemon encompasses the immensely popular line of video games, true, but it also includes the TCG and the anime series, both of which are major components of the franchise. It's much the same way with Yu-Gi-Oh, having the million-and-one video games, the very popular manga and anime (and their associated spinoffs), and of course the TCG. I'm less familiar with Digimon, but I'm pretty sure it's the same way with it. Therefore, we, WP:VG, and a collectible card game wikiproject (when or if it ever gets created) could all conceivably claim any of these three projects, and the projects themselves would likely fight against consolidation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no major objections to WP:GUNDAM being absorbed. Hopefully we can get a few more knowledgeable people to help us clean up and get into shape the UC Gundam stuff. More stuff from MalikCarr would be nice as he writes the best Gundam articles so far, but he doesn't like Wikipedia much -.- Jtrainor (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim Task Force

A task force for Adult Swim has been created under the Cartoon Network project (even though the CN project's scope currently says AS isn't covered :P). One editor then tagged 1-2 dozen anime articles with the CN banner, even though both the CN project and the AS task force specifically states "doesn't cover anime." He then modified the AS task force page to include anime, which has since been reverted. There is now a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Adult Swim#Adult Swim regarding the issue of whether the AS scope should include anime that airs on AS. As all members of the CN project have been notified of the discussion, it seemed only fair that this project also have a say in whether the overlap is necessary or desirable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Tactics episodes

Recently, I created List of Tactics episodes. While I've read a few volumes of the manga, the anime only follows it in essence, with the basic plot, (most) characters, and certain events being the same. I currently have no plans to buy the DVD boxset, so...It's be a great help if someone could fill in the episode descriptions. Normally, I'd ask on the main Tactics talk page, but the entire article seems to be inactive in the case of editing. Also, I believe that the episode titles are different in the English release than in the Japanese release. ANN lists them differently, and I believe I should change the titles to reflect that. Does anyone have that conformation? Also, my last quick question is how they refer to Haruka in the anime: as a tengu, demon, or goblin. In the manga, it's tengu, but I believe he's referred to as a goblin in the English anime. Thanks. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the anime as it premiered on Sci Fi, but that was spring last year, so I can't help with the plot summaries at all. IIRC, Haruka is referred to as a goblin (specifically, the "demon-eating goblin"), and I think I have all of the episode titles written down somewhere (unless Tactics is one of those series where the title card left the title in Japanese; I can't remember), so I may be able to help with that, too. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)