Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45

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

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

→

another reliable source

I don't think there is much need for discussion on this one, but I'd prefer to go through the formality of not adding it straight to the list.

The British Film Institute hosts a database of TV and Movies here. It's not amazingly detailed, and it's not perfect (I couldn't find a director on there because it had his name mispelled) but it covers anime amongst live action etc so may be of use in some cases where alternate sources are hard to come by, although it's usage for anime will be limited to movies. The database is maintained and operated by the institute from their own information and there does not appear to be any user generated content (and if there was it would have been checked before being added). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor on List of Naruto characters Article

An ANON editor as well as a newly registered user - who I have reason to believe is the ANON as well - is trying to pass off a fan fiction character named Saruto Uzumaki as a legitimate character on the List of Naruto characters article. There have been 5 reverts within 24hrs since it started, 3 of which have been from me. Two other editors have helped in removing the content. The disruptive editor has also created a personal article for their character (Here: Saruto Uzumaki) which I have tagged for speedy deletion after another editor tried but the tag was removed mistakenly by another. Protection on the List page may be necessary if they come back and try to push it again. Respective warnings for deliberate factual errors and vandalism have been issued. Fox816 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Report to AIV if he keeps up. RPP seems like a good idea if they return again. If another new editor pops in, probably a sockpuppet report would be good too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor when editing anonymously doesn't appear to have a static IP address as it changed, albeit only the last 2-3 digits, since the start of the push. I did a simple trace on both and it came from the same general location. I'll consider reporting both or at the very least the latest one if they continue. If the IP changes again I guess I'll have to add that in as well. So far warnings issued have been spread across the registered user and their new IP address. Indeed, an RPP would be a good idea if their IP changes once again. Fox816 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Also, keep in mind that if they are changing addresses, you can still go to the next level warning since its pretty clear its the same one. Meanwhile, the hoax article has been deleted. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....really? I didn't know that. I was always under the impression I had to start with initial warnings even if reasonably it was the same person. I'll keep that in mind, though I hope I don't have to come across that situation again XD Thanks! Fox816 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It make you look bad if you really aren't sure and issue stronger initial warning; but if they're making the same comments or virtually identical vandalism, then go ahead. AGF doesn't extend to IP-hopping serial vandals. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Impersonator

It seems that I have an impersonator. Not sure if I should report this to ANI or some other forum since he/she/it has redirected their user and talk pages to my account, thus potentially setting me up for something. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should report to AIV so it can get blocked. Seems like it might be that Pokemon guy again, so maybe an SPI as well -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to look up the account name for that vandal. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You said that anything Pokémon is kodomo back when you vandalized Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, so I'm just following your logic to its natural extension. --TehFarix (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you have to impersonate me then, Mathemagician? And I said that because Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu is serialized in a kodomo manga magazine, it's demographic is kodomo. Magical Pokémon Journey, on the other hand, is serialized in the shōjo manga magazine Ciao. Therefore its demographic is shōjo. —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit history of this IP reporting the vandalism around various forums, I can almost guarantee that this was an attempted setup by Mathemagician. —Farix (t | c) 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And now removing the {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} tags from Magical Pokémon Journey. Clearly this editor is only interested in being disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I only removed the notability tag, and that was because the article had already survived an afd. --70.129.184.122 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because it survived and AfD back in 2005 doesn't mean that it is notable. Walled gardens were much more strongly defended then and the arguments made in that discussion would be ignored today. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So would the sole argument for deletion, which was lack of ghits. --70.129.184.122 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Meaning that the AfD is irrelevant to the standards of inclusion today. I'm restoring the notability tag now. Provide some reliable third-party source before removing it again. —Farix (t | c) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Escalated to AIV for both the username and IP. Meanwhile, recommend just continuing to revert all edits as he is banned. He's made it clear he has no intention of trying to be productive or coming here in good faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be escalated to Wikipedia:UAA – and I suspect a checkuser on the account is not necessary to have the account blocked (see {{Uw-uhblock}}). G.A.S ^talk 05:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both the named sock and IP have been blocked, but sent in an SPI to make sure he has no sleepers and maybe reblock his range. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The logs must have been outdated when I wrote the above... The account was not indicated as being blocked at that time. ^_^ G.A.S ^talk 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Flagicons in episode lists

In reference to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 44#Flagicons in episode lists, I have removed all of the flagicons from List of Bakugan: New Vestroia episodes and reduced the English airdates to the first broadcast with a note in the lead about which episodes were premiered on Cartoon Network instead of Teletoon. However, a new editor, Nintendocan (talk · contribs) keeps re-adding the flagicons back.[1][2] I've already left a note about the flagicons on his/her user page.[3] —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hellsing Characters

Apart from Alucard there is not one reference to be found in the other articles for tne characters of the anime. I do not see why articles like these: Walter C. Dornez should be kept and would support a merge to List of Hellsing characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 February 2010

Not only do they not have have enough notability but they are written in an in-universe style and adding a lot of trivial information. The Problem is that there is noList of Hellsing Characters at the moment.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANIME/D is empty!

You better take a snapshot of this while you can. I have a feeling that it won't last long. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Too late there is a Prod now ;) --KrebMarkt 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Empty again... scary scary! --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

·hmm....i wanted to afd Neon Genesis Evangelion Timeline article, but now i feel like preserving it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs) 16 April 2010

Etchi/Ecchi

I have started a discussion at Etchi regarding the correct usage of the term as well as what should be it's correct name. The article claims that 'ecchi' is incorrect, but not only is it the reading of the katakana (and entering etchi via keyboard with katakana mode on just gives 'エtチ' instead of 'エッチ）it's by far the common usage of the term. Additionally, there is a book source for ecchi that doesn't even mention etchi as an alternative, although I'll have to add it later. The page was moved recently and with no real reason stated (and the recent edits by the same user seem to be just to reflect their opinion and not necessarily fact), but I thought this would benefit from further input. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. There's always going to be romanization issues. Ecchi is indeed the by far more common term, and I've seen it used in sources that would otherwise by their style guide use etchi. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Quasirandom. 'etchi' srsly? --Gwern (contribs) 14:44 16 April 2010 (GMT)

THEManime.org

Is it me, or is THEManime.org not accessible? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Works here.Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading some reviews there yesterday with no problem.

Itz: you may find this useful in the future: http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://themanime.org/ --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 16 April 2010 (GMT)

Ah. That is useful. For some reason, it doesn't work over here on Chrome, Firefox or IE. Ah well. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning Tokyo Virtual Child Porn Ban in

I wanted to mention this in Hakusensha's article since the company has set up a page for this,[4] together with HanaMaru [5] and Young Animal's [6] editorial department's protest for this policy.

How can I mention this in a neutral way? Amaya Sakura (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Related project discussion archive.

As for your question stay factual and use in-line citation for every fact you add. --KrebMarkt 06:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters

Well I'm editing List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters and mass merging characters. Should I remove Mikhail Coast, and Shiho Hahnenfuss from the article since they only impact the plot of either the spin off manga of the series. Also if they're removed, I'm going to be prodding all the manga characters such as Edward Harrelson and I'll afd List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Astray characters since I feel the manga spin off does not deserve a character list. Also I may use this section for the people against my edits in that article, which seems to occur every time I touch Gundam Seed. Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod was removed for George Glenn, added for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Glenn. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod removed for Siegel Clyne, added for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegel Clyne (2nd nomination). DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Manga characters are certainly notable enough to be included on the list. Edward321 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is the manga characters have their own list. Since the manga is a spin off and less heard of by the general public, the Seed list should only contain characters from the main series. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ip trolling at B Gata H Kei

I don't want to hit the 3RR so i'm dropping a note here. There is an IP claiming that ANN reviews are not credible thus removing the whole reception section from the said article. I already warned the IP. --KrebMarkt 08:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

He's vandalizing. No 3RR worries there, it does not apply to vandalism. Claiming it has no standing in the "subbing" community? Another disgruntled Fan who doesn't like the reception a series received. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. --KrebMarkt 16:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say that blog link is interesting, and thank you for putting it out here. In my opinion, if a specific fan does not like how the creator pans out the story or other people's criticism to the work, the specific fan can always voice their own view of the work and be willing to openly discuss it, or write out how they think the story should pan out; may be they will wind creating their own Wicked Witch of the West. Writing and discussing things are fun anyway as long as one is not trolling, and tolerance is great merit. Please excuse my off topic talk.Scchan (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That remind me that few months ago there was a "fan" making the accusation that pro manga reviewers are all sold to publishers which send them review copies. --KrebMarkt 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal image

(The following notice was copied from Portal talk:Anime and Manga)

Currently, there are two different portal images, depending on how the portal template is called. Which one would people prefer? I'm not watching this page, so it would be great if you could comment at Template talk:Portal#Case duplicates. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Portal\|Anime and manga}}	Anime and manga portal
{{Portal\|Anime and Manga}}	Anime and Manga portal

(End copied text -- G.A.S ^talk 09:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

From what I've seen, the M-version is preferred. I didn't even know about the m-version before. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the closeup version better. You just get a better look at Wiki-tan and it's also as if her eyes are watching you saying "Yes, I see you there editing. No vandalism please.". Fox816 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I confess I like the m-version as well -- easier to make out. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

m version too for me. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can have a combianation of both?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally dont care, why cant we just use both? The wiki universe is not going to end or anything if we do is it? I think the bottom one looks better to be honest, it would look better if it was enlarged to show more detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the bottom one better too. The top one kinda looks like those silly thumbnails they use in websites that don't show you the whole picture, forcing you to open the whole thing to see what it actually looks like. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl Macek bio

I have added as much non basis info on Carl Macek but I still believe it needs a clean up can any one know how to make it better? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:ANIME/ASSESS about increasing the importance rating to "High". —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Project banner shortcuts

Just to give everyone a heads up, {{Anime}} and {{Manga}} are now redirects of {{Anime and manga}}. {{WPAnime}} and {{WPManga}} have replaced the former two templates as shortcuts. This is in keeping in that all banner shortcuts should note that they are WikiProject templates. —Farix (t | c) 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is something that's bothered me for a long time; thanks for finally doing something about it! =D --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the reasoning behind this, I hope you fixed all of the ones which were meant to point at the project tag. Also, it would have been useful to be notified of this ahead of time. I've used the other ones since they were created (over four years ago, I believe), and this little notice got buried in the rest of this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming demographic categories

While trying to find out why a couple of webcomics are showing up in the improved AfD CatScan, the naming scheme of these categories began bothering me.

To display all subcategories click on the "►":
Anime and manga by demographic‎ (7 C) Japanese manga magazines by demographic‎ (5 C) Children's manga‎ (9 C, 81 P) Gekiga‎ (4 C, 40 P) Josei manga‎ (2 C, 284 P) Seinen manga‎ (5 C, 2,076 P) Shōjo manga‎ (6 C, 788 P) Shōnen manga‎ (7 C, 1,978 P)

They are not very descriptive, and taking their literal meetings, aren't suitable category names. It would be literally like having genre categories named Category:Women, Category:Men, Category:Boys, Category:Girls, Category:Children. We have already moved the various demographic articles to aid in clarification. So I'm proposing that the associated categories be renamed in kind:

The later proposal is because the term Kodomo is rarely used by reliable English language sources (Such as when ANN reports literary awards) and complies with WP:USEENGLISH. —Farix (t | c) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree here, particularly since we have repeatedly said that those demographics apply only to manga and not to anime, as shown in our MoS and infobox. The only one I'm curious about is Kodomo. If it is rarely used, is it a legitimate category at all, or is it just that such titles are more frequently referenced as just "children's manga" instead? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The term Kodomo is rarely used in English. Instead, it is simply referred to as Children's manga since most people a ready understand that term and there is no need to explain it. I suppose it is one area were the "elitism" of using a Japanese term over its English equivalent never took root, except here on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

CoroCoro Comic appears to be a kodomo manga magazine, but not so sure if it is.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is, but it's rarely called that in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is an english name, than add it in, i honestly didnt know there was an englsih name for kodomo.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is children's manga? I have never heard that term used either in english, I say leave as is or just AfD it. When is the last time you have heard the english term suggested used? - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A search for "Kodomo manga" at ANN only turns up manga with "Kodomo" in the titles. And in a quick search, only About.com uses the term Kodomo, and then only sparingly and with clarification that it means "Children's manga. —Farix (t | c) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for renaming. —Farix (t | c) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you allowed to use wikipedia as a source?

The reason I ask such a question is because Mazinger Z uses wikipedia to source alot of its material. If not should it be removed? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia can never be used as a source, it isn't a reliable source (user edited, etc). Any sources that just go to Wikipedia (any language) should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for now but feel it will be might be put back by another author Dwanyewest (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, per WP:CIRCULAR Wikipedia, any language or mirror thereof may not be used as a source as that would lead to a circular reference. No to mention that the citation only linked to the article, as opposed to a specific version thereof o_O. I will be watching the page for the time being. G.A.S ^talk 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a caveat to that - when a reliable source uses Wikipedia as a reference, the reliable source can still be used with care. RS/N discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

adaptations

I've noticed a tendancy in the Anime and Manga articles to list original works as "Adapations" when they clearly aren't. FE: Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple has the manga listed under an "adapatation" although the lead clearly states it is the original work. One cannot be an original work and an adaptation at the same time. I do not know if our MoS really deals with this, but it does make things confusing as to what is an original and what is an adaptation when its listed in multiple locations let alone that adaptation has a clear meaning that is used and understood in such a way by the public and the rest of Wikipedia that it cannot be the original.陣内 _Jinnai 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That article has a misnamed section (as does most any other using Adaptation most likely). The WP:MOS-AM uses the heading of Media for that section, because not all related media are adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the section header to "Media", which is in keeping with our other articles. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New notability guideline proposal: Periodicals

Since we deal with a lot of magazines and such here, I thought I'd let you know. Please come participate in the discussion of this newly proposed notability guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) (talk). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed Season 17 Featured List

With the weekend coming up, I'd like some views on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)/archive2 so I could fix up the problems for the article. I also thank NihonJoe for the copyedits to the episodes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Crossover anime and manga

Category:Crossover anime and manga is another category that I've came across. This category was a real mess and was mostly populate by non-anime or manga articles (most of them 1990s Spider Man episodes) and even a squeal or two. I believe I got most of them out now, but the question is, where to put this category in the tree? Is Category:Anime and manga by topic the most appropriate place or somewhere else. Right now, it is linked off of the top Anime and Manga categories. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As there haven't been any complaints about this, and because I agree with your suggestion, I update the cats per the above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon edits in List of Bleach episodes

An anon user has been editing List of Bleach episodes adding unsourced or speculated titles to the seasons. I gave him a warning, but keeps editing it with another IP. Should the I request semi-protection to the list? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article history indicates that semi-protection is probably warranted. Give it a shoot at WP:RPP or one Animanga project participant admins can do it. --KrebMarkt 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

91.8 The Fan Interviews

Hello, I’m a fan of 91.8 The Fan (http://www.918thefan.com) and I’ve been attempting to add links to voice actor interviews to their respective pages. From my knowledge Wikipedia does allow interviews concerning voice actors, but when I was attempting to add them they all got deleted.

I was a little confused by this because many of these interviews confirm or deny roles that Wikipedia states. In relation with that, it seems that 91.8 The Fan has the largest collection of western voice actor interviews and it seems like a valuable resource. I’m not trying to stuff this down anyone’s throat or get in trouble, I just wanted to ask if these are reliable resources or not? These are conversations with voice actors for up to hours, which I think is pretty interesting.

Maybe you guys could help us gauge whether or not these are okay?

Their interviews are listed here of the following people: http://918thefan.com/category/industry-interview/

I would like to confirm that I am not under their payroll, and that’s why I’m not sure why I‘m in trouble.

Here is a list of actors they've interviewed that I tried to add interview links to:

Aaron Dismuke
Ali Hillis
Brad Swaile
Chris Patton
Claudia Black
Crispin Freeman
Cristina Vee
David Lodge
Doug Erholtz
Eric Vale
Grant George
Gwendoline Yeo
Jennifer Hale
Joe Ochman
Joe Romersa
Jonthan Klein
Jonathan Osborne
Julie Rei Goldstein
Juliet Cesario
Justin Cook
Kari Wahlgren
Kirby Morrow
Kyle Hebert
Liam O’Brien
Maile Flanagan
Mark Hildreth
Matt Mercer
Megan Hollingshead
Michael Granberry
Michelle Ruff
Mike Pollock
Patrick Seitz
Quinton Flynn
Rachel Robinson
Richard McGonagle
Robert Axelrod
Sam Douglas
Scott McNeil
Scott Simpson
Stephanie Sheh
Tara Platt
Tiffany Grant
Tony Oliver
Travis Willingham
Troy Baker
Veronica Taylor
Vic Mignogna
Wally Wingert
Yuri Lowenthal

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBaker41 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be fine for an external link, no questions. It is a commercial site which isn't full of user-contributed content (at least not as far as the interviews), so the interviews could be used to verify some facts. It would be good to have other non-interview sources to back up anything controversial, but using them to verify that they played a role (or not) shouldn't be a problem since official sites can be used for the same thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How could I go about adding these links without them being deleted and getting myself in trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBaker41 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New stub type listed at for deletion

See Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#March_5: {{anime-eplist-stub}} and Category:Anime episode list stubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 March 2010

Archive nudge --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Anime/Manga

I asked this already but got redirected here. Why is it that all anime pages have to be on the same page as the manga they're based on and yet movies and tv series based off of a comic book or a novel get separate pages? --75.3.132.58 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are enough sources for a particular adaptation to expand the section or information on that adaptation, then it can be split into a separate article. Until then, there's no reason to split it out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One reason is to avoid redundancy separated anime & manga articles for the same franchise tend to repeat one another in term of contents.

Second reason is that a lot of original manga & visual novels which were adapted into anime are clearly borderline in term of notability and thus could be send for deletion. Putting the manga + anime together or visual novel + anime together is unsure contents resilience & survival.

Third with the increase of media mix and derived products, articles tend to be more on the whole franchise than just anime or manga. Having separated articles make you question were you should put Audio drama, Soundtracks, Internet radio show, Video games adaptation, etc... because i really doubt that all of them are notable per themselves thus deserving their own articles. --KrebMarkt 07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's not notable about soundtracks or video games? --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 20 April 2010 (GMT)

There have been games out there that have not been notable to add or weren't notable at the time, soundtracks too, usually they aren't unless they are put in a list.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of anime soundtracks and video game adaptations are not notable on their own. Existence != notability. For the original OP, because most of the time, the anime and manga are not significantly different and are better served by having a single article rather than two primarily repetitive ones. The latter is often not true of movie/TV adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of video games are not notable? I'd say that's quite false; the long-standing video game magazine industry means that the RSs are there for most games if someone (in the right language) will look them up. --Gwern (contribs) 17:01 20 April 2010 (GMT)

Leave the bad-faith and personal attacks at home and not in your edit summary. If you can show a video game that was only released in Japan is notable (and have the sources) then go make an article for it. Otherwise, you are basically making an unsupportable and unverifiable claim. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your over simplifying it. because information exist that could make a video game notable, doesn't mean it is in wikipedia (yet).Bread Ninja (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think anime and manga articles are overly merged together. For most non-anime/manga works, both the original work and adaptations of it get separate articles if they each could pass the notability guidelines on their own. For example, for the Harry Potter franchise, the books each get an article, the films adapted from the books get separate articles, and the video games adapted from the films each get yet another article. Another example is the Halo Wikiproject, where all the secondary and tertiary parts of the franchise are made into good or featured articles, rather than being merged into a few articles. I think the instructions in WP:MOS-AM to combine articles on adaptations into the articles on the parent work are misguided and out of line with how the rest of Wikipedia handles adaptaions of fictional works. Instead I think the manual of style should encourage separate articles to be written if they both pass the notability guidelines and there is enough to write about each work that the articles wouldn't be just stubs. I don't see the issue of redundancy as being a real problem, both because no other Wikiproject seems to be concerned with it and because the parts that would be redundant (plot and characters) shouldn't be the majority of the article anyway. If each version of the work separately passes the notability guidelines, then there will have to be different things written about each version (i.e. different reviews, different production information, etc.). Though the arguement is made that articles on separate parts of a franchise could be split if the combined article becomes too large, it seems to me that more isn't written on the adaptations specifically because the articles are already combined together. For example, I think there is clearly enough information on Dragon Ball GT to support a separate article, as it would have different reception, sales figures, production information, a different plot summary, and some new major characters compared to the rest of the Dragon Ball franchise, but the article never gets written as it is merged into a small section of the parent article and no one wants to write a whole article worth of content in what is currently a small section of a large artilce. Anyway, that's my opinion on this issue. Calathan (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Most series are NOT Dragon Ball level series. Most we are lucky to pull together enough reliable sources to even have one good article, much less try to split them into two or five or however many random adaptations and side items there are. I think the MoS handles both perfectly fine. It does not say "don't you ever make another article", it recommends having one good article over two crappy ones, then, if after you have one good article, there is enough content about any one specific adaptation (beyond just its chapter/episode list) to support another good article, then consider a split. There are some series where it has two main media that are different enough to warrant multiple articles, but most of the time, there is not enough difference. If you feel Dragon Ball GT should be resplit, write a new article in your user space and propose it on Dragon Ball. It DID have a separate article, and consensus was to merge it 0 it has nothing to do with preventing an article from being written, rather no one wants to bother nor has anyone shown how a full, separate article that is not redundant to the first is possible. As for what other projects are doing - I think that is mostly irrelevant as it is less common that each one can barely maintain notability (and where one of the two works is not notable, they are, in fact, merged same as with Anime/manga). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all or most anime/manga articles should be split into multiple articles, but that the MOS keeps even those that should be split from being split by discouraging people from even attempting to write separate artilces. Using the example of Dragon Ball, there is clearly a large number of people who think Dragon Ball GT should be split. If the article was split, each person interested in the article could add a piece of text to it, with some people cleaning up the various pieces of text to make a coherent article, and eventually a good article would be created. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, because of the MOS and people continually maintaining the redirect, any one person who wants it changed would have to do all the work towards creating a high quality article by themselves, placing too much of a burden on any one person for anyone to actually bother doing it. Basically, I think that instead of the MOS calling for articles to be merged unless there is a reason to split them, the MOS should call for separate articles unless there is a reason to merge them (with reasons for merging including that one version of the work isn't notable by itself, or the sources available don't seem to provide enough material to write multiple non-stub articles). In the case of Dragon Ball GT, it is clearly notable on its own due to reviews, and I think any quick pass of the sources available show that it could support a whole article (You could easily write two paragraphs of plot summary that wouldn't be redundant with the rest of Dragon Ball, and two paragraphs on reception that also wouldn't be redundant . . . I'd call that more than a stub already). AnmaFinotera, I think you are one of the small number of Wikipedia editors who puts a lot of work singlehandedly into writing high quality articles, and you are missing that the way Wikipedia works in general is that a large number of people contribute to articles until they build up into a whole, complete article. Its true that most articles won't reach features status until one or two dedicated people put a lot of work into them, but just because an article won't become featured article quality doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It really feels to me that WP:MOS-AM is set up to hide away low quality articles on subjects that should have articles in order to make our article quality look better, and ignores the fact that Wikipedia works by having lots of contributors gradually add to an article over time. While the previous article on Dragon Ball GT might not have been a very good article, just having an article there would eventually lead to a decdent-quality artilce being written, while having a strictly maintained redirect will instead lead to the article never being written. Calathan (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not much of an issue, it's much more difficult to find reception for smaller games and such. you can't complain if something is merged for the right reasons. If you wish for every piece of media to have it's own featured article than it has to be notable. that's the key pointBread Ninja (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as spinout/adaptation articles are concerned, we are in a somewhat unique position on Wikipedia, for a number of reasons. Most generally, Wikipedia has its own version of the presumption of innocence - the "presumption of nonnotability". That is, the burden for establishing notability for a given topic or subject is on the individual wishing to write an article on it; this is most obviously supported by the entire AfD process. This also means that, even if a given subject *could* meet WP:N and company, it is assumed that it does not until explicitly shown that it does. The natural consequence of this for us specifically is that we end up with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of potential articles on notable subjects (including "the vast majority of anime soundtracks and video game adaptations") which may never get written simply because all notability-establishing reliable sources for those subjects are in e.g. Japanese and we have very little luck with finding reliable Japanese sources (this is not because such sources are scarce - anime and manga are, in Japan, as significant a part of the culture as Hollywood is here in America, and thus it is a reasonable assumption that reliable Japanese sources should be just as prevalent - nor is it for a lack of trying on our part, since most Japanese newspapers and magazines - the most obvious reliable Japanese sources - do not yet keep extended archives on their web sites). Next, the idea of having articles for adaptations is mostly handled by having spinout lists of episodes, chapters, films, video games, novels, albums, etc. - I do not believe it to be an exaggeration that we make more use of such spinout lists than even WP:TV. We have developed these lists so much, in fact, that many of them would only need production and reception information to pass for articles on adaptations, once they were brought up to about a high C or a B - this basically means that our adaptation articles are almost all in the form of spinout lists. Our MOS is written with our unique circumstances in mind, and, in my opinion at least, works quite well given those circumstances. Lastly, a significant reason we cannot support articles on adaptations everywhere they might pass WP:N is a lack of manpower - we are one of the larger projects on Wikipedia in terms of amount of content, but do a quick headcount of those of us who actually contribute to the project - discussing matters here, assessing, cleaning up, and categorizing articles, etc. - as opposed to those who simply edit articles related to their favorite series. We are, in fact, probably at a greater disadvantage than the other arts and media-related projects, considering anime and manga's ability to so strongly polarize its fanbase along so many different dividing lines. Now, to discuss the specific example of Dragon Ball GT mentioned above (especially in regards to the comment alluding to reliance on eventualism), let me point out that at the time it was merged/redirected to Dragon Ball, the article had existed since August 2003 (just shy of 5 years) without ever progressing beyond a largely-unreferenced, frequently vandalized, start-class article lacking any type of production or reception information. This is one of the foremost reasons requests to resplit it are refused, not because of some hidden deletionist agenda. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you wanted to split Dragon Ball GT I would say you'd have to have a decent level article. I wouldn't have to be WP:GA quality, but splitting it shouldn't jepordize the level of the parent artcle and I'd say a spinoff should be a C-class or strong start-class article. Yes, this does place a signfigant burden on the original creator, but given the article's history, such a burden is warranted.陣内 _Jinnai 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the assessment guidelines say that a start-class article should already adequately demonstrate its notability, so a start-class article is a perfectly acceptable level for a spinout to be at. --Malkinann (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

After talking about this issue with User:Bread Ninja on our talk pages, I'm realizing that my real concern here isn't whether the different adaptations are covered in a single article or multiple articles, but whether coverage of the adaptations are being inadvertantly stifled. Whether the content gets written in one article or multiple articles isn't really what I'm concerned about. Looking at relatively high-quality artilces like School Rumble and Fullmetal Alchemist, it seems to me that they do a very good job of covering both the manga and anime in detail, and having the coverage in a single article allows for better coverage of the differences between the multiple versions. It seems to me that except when there has been a specific push to bring an article up to good or featured status, adaptations and spinoffs end up neglected even when sources exist to cover them. Perhaps adding a line to WP:MOS-AM specifically stating that adaptations and spinoffs should be covered to the extent that sources allow (rather than having only brief covereage due to not being the original work) could help address this problem, though it probably doesn't do anything to address the issue of lack of manpower. With regards to Dragon Ball GT, my main issue is that the current layout of the article makes it hard to expand the coverage of DBGT in a way that seems to fit in the artilce, and also makes the insufficient coverage less noticable. Having it is a separate article makes it immediately clear that Dragon Ball GT is lacking coverage. I think I'm in disagreement with a lot of people here on the usefulness of stub and start class articles. In my opinion, in some cases having a poorly sourced stub or start class article is actually better than having something merged into a section of another article, as the poor-quality article is a very clear indication that work needs to be done on the subject. With a topic merged into a larger article, the better coverage in the rest of the article may mask the poor coverage of the area that was merged. While it is unfortunate that no one may bother to do the work even when a separate stub or start class article exists, I don't think the lack of manpower to actually write the article is reason to merge if it is clear that multiple artilces would be the desired end result. However, I'm only suggesting that having a start or stub class article is useful for cases where multiple articles would clearly be ideal. Also, I want to mention that I feel that a few members of this Wikiproject overly WP:BITE new users or people that disagree with them, and that may be a large part of why this Wikiproject doesn't have enough manpower (that is certainly the main reason I haven't put the tag for being a member of this Wikiproject on my talk page . . . I don't want people to associate me with those users). Once again using Dragon Ball GT as an example, if the users who tried to undo the redirect hadn't been called vandals (when this was clearly a content dispute, not vandalism), but instead had been asked to join the Wikiproject and pointed to reviews on sites like Anime News Network and Mania.com and asked to write a reception section, perhaps a good quality article on Dragon Ball GT would already exist. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Calathan. I think that if there are enough sources for an adaptation to bring it to at least start level, then it should be fine having a separate article for that adaptation. The push which began a couple years ago to merge everything for an entire series, no matter how massive that series might be, did stifle the efforts of some people who were working with various groups of series articles. On a related note, I think the same applies for magazines, the Gangan Comics article being a prime example. I still disagree with merging all of those magazines into one article was a big mistake and made things somewhat confusing. I've never seen any other groups of magazines from anywhere else in the world merged into one catch-all article like this. I will likely be splitting most of them out sometime in the near future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the reticence to have article for adaptation is that it can be perceived as a "carte blanche" for more spin-out which is something we don't want at all. Another point is can we spin-out adaptation article without degrading the quality of the original article? Last point that no one gave a sane answer yet is what do we do with the other medias meaning Drama CD, Web Radio show, etc.... Do we cover it in the anime article or the manga article?
My current position is that beyond main article and related lists volumes, episodes, characters & soundtracks, every others spin-out articles have to be justified with enough verified contents proving that it's worth it. You want a spin-out fine, earn it. I sick tired of editors making false promise. --KrebMarkt 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends....Usually a drama Cd would mean that a possible anime could be adapted (like a debut or something), i think it would go on manga section, depending if they use the same voice actors as the anime, then it can be moved to the anime.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anime series cats

Notice the number of articles in the cats listed in Category:Anime and manga series categories. With a few exceptions, most of the categories have no more than 5 articles in them. this seems to be sort of over-categorization were practically every series with a couple of spin-out articles—usually a character, volume, and episode lists—is given it's own category. So the question is, how many articles are necessary before it is necessary to create a category for that series? —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Two articles is enough for a category to be created. No point in deleting valid categories. --Mika1h (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But categories are deleted or up-merged all of the time for being small with little to no potential for growth. And many of the series categories fit the definition of types of categories to avoid creating. (WP:OC#SMALL) —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are certain types of categories which are preferred to have one category for everything Wikipedia has an article on, even if that means having only one article in some of the categories - the example of this that I am aware of is albums by artist. I'm not sure just how animanga series cats would fit in there, though. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Soundtracks

While going through articles for merging, I noticed that there are 28 articles that are almost all stubs for the soundtracks marked as suggested merges. Would it be better to just merge them all into a DBZ Discography minus the really notable stand out ones ? (They can be in the discography too but have their own article as well) I do not see why they need their own articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i think they should be merged, but I'm thinking of two articles one for soundtracks and one soundtrack collections if possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, we have List of Dragon Ball soundtracks as potential drop zone for the contents and the source are here. Happy editing. --KrebMarkt 18:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do this so that we can finally have a manageable list of album articles to link to from the Dragon Ball navbox... =P --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Na. We need more editors getting some experiences on writing list of soundtracks. I provided all the sources for the list so call it assisted mud wading for editors doing the list. --KrebMarkt 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I will get on it to fix up the list then, some of the sound tracks are not notable enough for stand out articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What do I do with this article?

List of Dr. Slump (1997) episodes. Apparently this is the first episode of the second anime of the series. I think it should just be deleted. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it as a unreferenced anime stub. I you think it should be deleted you can use {{Prod}} or {{Afd}}. – allen四names 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid episode list, even if there is only currently one episode listed (and I'm not too sure of the name either) - add entries for the other episodes and clean up/expand what's already there. Note that the other Dr. Slump episode list also needs some cleanup/expansion; both lists look like they were created by the same person. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

They weren't, but the creator of 1997 page started adding summaries to the first page recently. There's a lot of episodes to go, so give him time to get the work done. He might well be planning on expanding the 1997 page once he finishes the 200+ episode summaries on the original. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Music of Ghost in the Shell

Since I've seen a lot of OST talk, i was wondering if anyone could possibly check the rep-article I've done and see if anyone could help on it. Krebmarkt already provided refs with most of the soundtracks in the discussion page, unfortunately i cannot 'read' Japanese. I removed most of the CD cast and left the important ones temporarily so i could put it in prose format later and possibly remove more of it. I'll try to move the information of the infoboxes onto the opening paragraph of there respected section.

Reason why i named it "Music of Ghost in the Shell" instead of "List of Ghost in the Shell Albums" is because i thought there is information on any reception towards Yoko Kanno onto the articles (which I'm pretty positive there is). So if anyone found something like that but in Japanese, it would be great to include it. other than that, the reason why i posted it here is because i think it's ready to merge all the OST and Singles together, but I'm always self conscious about it so thought it should get reviewed first.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gurren Lagann edit war

There is currently an edit war going on between me and a new editor who persists to change "Gunmen", the spelling of the mecha used in the official English releases, to "Ganmen", the transliteration of the original ガンメン. I have attempted to point the user to WP:MOS-AM, though at this point I don't see the user ready to listen to any argument I might give. Gunmen is used in reliable reviews here, here, here, and here, and I found "Gunmen" used on Bandai's website for the first film. I couldn't find "Ganmen" used in any reliable/official source.--十八 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits and tried to give an explanation on his talk page. I would recommend trying to talk to people on their talk page (not just in edit summaries) before writing them off as not listening to anything you say. I don't know if he'll listen, but I figure it can't hurt to give him a more detailed explanation. Calathan (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Romaji check

Could someone check the Romaji for the directors from the article List of Buso Renkin episodes since I'm unsure on some of them and I am planning to send this to featured list soon. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Some books which may be useful

I don't have these books (though I wish I did), but if anyone in Japan can find them, they will be invaluable in helping to source older Oricon chart entries:

Oricon No.1 Hits 1968-1985, ISBN 4906496121, October 1998, published by クラブハウス
Oricon No.1 Hits 1986-1994, ISBN 490649613X, October 1998, published by クラブハウス
1970-1989 Oricon Chart Book LP Edition, ISBN 4871310256, May 1990, published by Oricon
1987-1998 Oricon Chart Book, ISBN 4871310469, July 1999, published by Oricon
1968-1988 Oricon Chart Book Artist Edition, ISBN 4871310213, September 1988, published by Oricon

So, anyone in Japan want to look for them and obtain them? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe

From my experience any soundtracks released on any CD format is referenced in Oricon website database just that editors either don't know where/how to search or those editors simply don't care. The oldest reference, i found so far in Oricon is a DBZ soundtrack CD dating from 1987.

For stuff prior CD, well those books are certainly useful. --KrebMarkt 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've worked at finding an easy way to search their database, but it's a completely awful design. I think that's around the oldest I've found, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is the general Oricon website www.oricon.co.jp and there is the charts only one ranking.oricon.co.jp. Usually i use google with Oricon and CD catalog code as key words because you can't search per catalog code in Oricon itself and its search engine is very case sensitive. --KrebMarkt 06:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Relationship and Friends sections

I noticed some articles have a "Relationship" or a "friends" section of the fictional characters. I was thinking if those should even be in articles. They seem really trivial and the ones i seen are mostly made up of OR. These sections seem to be part of "personality" section more than a stand alone section. But regardless, i wanted to make sure this was already talked about.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, such sections should almost always be removed. Its generally excessive in-universe, plotty information and a ton of OR. Character articles should have a brief synopsis of their role in the plot, which will usually note any relevant relationships, but primarily should focus on the out-of-universe aspects. Take a look at some of our GA character articles :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK i see, then I'll fix some of these articles then. thanksBread Ninja (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

These sections are almost full of unsourced character analysts and interpretations, thus violating WP:NOR. So as a general rule, they shouldn't be in an article. List of powers and abilities fall in a similar boat and are extremely trivial in most cases. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Or to look at it another way, the internal parts (as opposed to the external conception and reception parts) of a character article should focus on the character -- that is, the characterization. While how the character relates to other characters is one element of their characterization, a catalog of Rabbit's numerous Friends and Relations throws the focus away from the character and on all those others, and so should be avoided. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Manhwa vs manga

Got the usual editor insisting something is a manga when it is not over at Recast. If somebody else would be so kind as to step in... 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

left a message on his talk page, hopefully he accepts it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=7268 calls it manhwa.....so that's one.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Question

Things escalated quite a bit. I hope this editor will seek dispute resolution. --KrebMarkt 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. WP:Third opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Joe seems reasonable enough; I think we could resolve this simply by discussing and getting some other project members involved, without having to resort to WP:DR. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghibli short films

I just created Studio Ghibli short films to catch any of the shorts which don't have their own articles (which is three of them at the moment). I also have short summaries for all the other shorts listed in the {{Studio Ghibli Films}} template. Given how short some of the short film articles are, it may be good to merge some or all of them into this new article to make one really good article instead of a whole bunch of stubs. Thoughts? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

on censorship

Dropping here: Audio: Censorship in Manga Lecture by Jason Thompson.

I didn't know where it could be useful and my English listening skill i below average. --KrebMarkt 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell edits

though i have run into some edits before with User:NewYorkStyledCheesecakes, it was until recently that it got a bit out of hand. After i merged the ghost in the shell OSTs, (and I'm sure i got approval in the past by gwern or krebmarkt), NewYorkStyledCheesecakes asked why i merged them, i answered and for some reason s/he is reverting the redirects to the main page and re-adding the information on the pages. I question whether if it's ok to have the exact same information on both articles, but i'm pretty sure articles such as albums that don't meet GNG should be deleted, or merged if possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

CoroCoro Comic demographic

ChuChu (talk · contribs) is attempting to reclassify all manga serialized in the children's manga magazine CoroCoro Comic as Shōnen manga. This may possibly be our Pokemon vandal under a different account. —Farix (t | c) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

ChuChu has been around a while; as far as I know, the only edits he ever makes are adding and correcting demographic terms. It can be...very hard to change his mind about anything, but you can occasionally get him to compromise. I've clashed with him over whether Champion Red is shonen or seinen, and over using manga demographic terms with light novels; I lost the first battle, and light novels are now listed as "Male" or "Female" instead. Good luck convincing him CoroCoro Comic is a children's manga magazine if he's decided it isn't. Doceirias (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is going to need some reliable sources to back up that is a shōnen magazine when the few reliable sources I've came across have called it a children's magazine. —Farix (t | c) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Comic BonBon issue date

Can someone identify the issue date of Comic BonBon found on this ANN article? I guessing it is the final issue of the magazine, but I like someone to confirm it before uploading it to Wikipedia and applying it to the Comic BonBon article. —Farix (t | c) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to be the final one. The imprint "12" next to the title indicates the month. The cover characters are from GeGeGe no Kitaro and Deltora Quest as mentioned in the article. Arsonal (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Go Comi website down

Go! Comi Lets Its Website Expire ANN

There are articles using this website as primary source. --KrebMarkt 06:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh argh. Thanks for the heads up. How soon I wonder before the rest of their titles go out of print? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anime conventions navboxes

Does anyone have an opinion on Template:Anime conventions in North America? More views would be appreciated over here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Better as a category imo.陣内 _Jinnai 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class

Brining this up because I made a request for School Rumble to have this level of assement. Problem is that it has become too quality of an article to get properly peer reviewed (it gets ignored because users are intimidated by the bredth and quality of the info), but it has failed 3 FACs because it isn't quite FAC material and the reasoning given is generally unhelpful to me improving the article. So I am wanting some help in getting it to the point to do so and to give it a level where it coud pass. This means having mutiple reviewers who know their stuff come in, ie essentially an A-class assessment. I know we don't normally allow these, but I would like to make special expections for these cases.

Note, that while SR is under the VG WP, it is a legacy link from when the video game articles were all merged and quite possibly could be removed. I do not think it would be proper to ask them for such an assement which is why I am making it here.陣内 _Jinnai 19:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, such an assessment would be better made through this project, given the primary source material. As for the assessment, I can understand the appeal, given the rock and hard place ... —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I have always felt that A - Class would be useful for this project I see that it is not used currently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class should remain an exception with the project if we put it back online and only used when one more step is deemed necessary between GA and FA. Seeing FA reviews for School Rumble and Twin Spinca give me a sort of lack of support default to not promoted with not much clues how to attract the lacking support in a future FA review. --KrebMarkt 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see much value in A class and see more projects dropping it than not. We are still a fairly small project compared to others, and have a hard enough time getting folks to do even peer reviews, without re-adding another review layer that was largely ignored. When you did the peer review, did you try pinging specific folks about it to get feedback? It sometimes helps...or ask to have it extended. But I don't think readding A class, even as an exception, would really give better results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be something though. I agree, as a default not having A-Class should stay, but I am stating for exceptions. PRs are generally done for lower-quality articles. I think low-quality GA articles is about the highest most of them look at. The lack of any step between GA and FA, even for exceptions, is hurting, not helping this project.陣内 _Jinnai 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with not having something such as a-class is it makes B-class very broad. Projects do grow and there are lots of anime related articles out there. Maybe those exceptions exist out there for some articles. What those exceptions are is something that would have to be discussed upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How so? A class would be above GA not B, and depending on the project (there seems to be no real agreement) above or below FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that project-level assessments and GA/FA assessments need to be separated from each other, but that proposal has been made by others and failed to gain traction. =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have my support there.

For this project I think a clear indicator is an example of an exception would be something along the lines of the two articles that have been metioned before. Items which have gone through an FAC and come back with no good info on how to improve it. Considering how few Failed FACs we have, I think the project could handle such a high bar.陣内 _Jinnai 04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem to allow A-class on exception, but I am doubtful whether enough editors will participate in such a discussion (other than !voting support/oppose). My feeling is that if this is to be done, a subpage should be created for the review and transcluded onto this page to attract the necessary attention. One can probably use WP:Milhist's criteria & FAQ for the review process. (At least this way you will get input, instead of having a long discussion whether it should be done or not^_^) G.A.S ^talk 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Projects I know that do this have the reviews on the page itself or transcluded onto the page and are announced in the main talk page (because even there they are rare). Ocassionally they need to ask for support twice, but usually 2x is enough.陣内 _Jinnai 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we try a few with the above criteria? I'd hate these articles to be stuck in the limbo between GA and FA because there of the lack helpful content by reviewers to improve the articles. I do think basing the reviewing criteria off of MilHist is the best way.陣内 _Jinnai 06:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think School Rumble should be taken as an example of how ridiculous copyedit requests can get, especially (if not exclusively) in WP:ANIME. I think Jinnai said it best with:

I'll fix the issues you raise, but please, please find the perfect copy-editor. This article has been through 3 exhaustive independent FA-quality copy-editors and numerous lesser ones, each independent of the other. Every time I bring this here, someone finds something else they don't care for or other minor issues and suggests a full copy-edit is in order, which usually makes someone else the next time not like something that the copy-edit from last time changed. I feel for the most part that the copy-edits, unless they are specific are beginning to go into circles for this article.

And with comments like "They both look ridiculous to me", it's clear to me that some editors see anime/manga articles as second class citizens, something that has plagued another project I am involved with. The truth is, you can't make everyone happy, and a lot of the time what makes one person happy will infuriate another. I am very surprised not to see more opposition in the copyediting of another article's (later successful) attempt at FA. Was this just because there were more copyeditors available? Better ones? Or did people not care as much 1.5 years ago? If School Rumble has gone through 3 FACs and 4 PRs (along with it being GA), how is it that people are still talking about the copyediting? Even without the copyediting concerns, we see editors having to explain, and re-explain, and re-re-explain conventions this project has formed consensus on because those doing the FAC are often not familiar with reviewing anime/manga articles. But in fact, this project has been aligning itself more and more with WP:BOOK and WP:TV over the years, so I can't fathom why this is so. If you notice, not even a single person supported the latest FAC attempt of School Rumble, despite it probably being one of the most scrupulously examined articles in recent knowledge. Perfection, I suppose, really is the rule, and not the exception, on Wikipedia today.--十八 08:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Much as I'd understand not wanting to "try again", looking at the last FAC, it seems like the main issues were with the ALT text...which is no longer an FA criteria. The last remarks have a few good comments, but a few useless ones. I think part of the issue is sometimes in FAC we feel like we "must" fix anything anyone says, which ends up with conflicting things and the article left in a mixed state. The whole having too many refs remark didn't need "fixing" just confirming, yes they are needed - instead it looks like you combined them all into a single ref which is then against the MoS and I'd personally oppose over (*ducks*). He also made remarks that really have nothing to do with the FA criteria or are required of any other article. Unfortunately, the lack of good media article reviewers means our articles, along with Films, Television, and Novels, end up getting reviewed by those ignorant of what a good media article should have and who look at it the same as, say, a scientific article. My most recently novel FA was just plain ugly, with one reviewer who admitted he knew nothing about novel articles in general wanting me to add points that would require OR and basically opposing because the topic, while notable, is brief. It is very frustrating and really no other fixes available other than heavier promoting of the next FAC and trying to get more of the fiction reviewers to look at it. In the next attempt, I'd also work on your nomination statement. Note all of the peer reviews in addition to its being a GA, and show that it has been copyedited, etc. I find it helps some.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, on the issue of sources, I combinded them affert suggested in a post-FAC comment by another FAC reviewer who said they probably would have wanted it mostly because it made the statements look more contriversial.陣内 _Jinnai 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 169 articles to be referenced, a 2.9% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Viz restructuring

[7] They say they aren't going to cut any series, hopefully that's true... This has also generated quite a bit of notice in various RSes, refer a Google search for "viz restructuring". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

CMX closing

More important is CMX closing in July [8]. At least Viz is still alive. Anyone up to archive CMX catalog? --KrebMarkt 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecchi - Etchi

Seems a very minor "move and redirect" scuffle occurred at Ecchi with one user pushing for the article to have 'Etchi' as being the main and primary focus. They referenced a Japanese-English dictionary as their source, did not attempt to enter the previous talk about why the move was made on the discussion page instead saying that "anime-lovers" need to use "serious dictionaries" for the proper formulations. After the page was protected they did a content change on the page which I reverted. I also see the page doesn't have any references for the term Ecchi though on the talk page quite a few were mentioned in passing. Can anyone provide references for it? I don't own any publications of the sort that address ecchi, though I am looking back on my old issues of Newtype USA looking for articles that use the word or bring it up as a topic. I don't think we can use the ANN lexicon can we? Fox816 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45#Etchi/Ecchi, from mid-last month. It's the exact same guy, too (note that he's also moved the Polish version of the article; I haven't checked any other language versions). At this point, I'd say it's safe to revert and ignore; I've gone ahead and made the move protection indefinite. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ecchi", while using a nonstandard romanization, is (by far) the most common romanization of that word. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Fox816 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecchi

The correct pronunciation and romanisation of the term has come under fire again by the same user as before. Opinions wlecomed.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Magical girl vs magical-girl

An editor at Talk:Magical girl is insisting that the term should always be hyphenated when used as an adjective. —Farix (t | c) 11:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Connection issues

Just to let everyone know, since last Wednesday, I've been having some serious connection issues with my cable internet. This is one of the reasons I haven't been that active during the last few days. I've already contacted my cable company, but we still don't know if the problem is with the system or if my cable modem is going bad. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My situation is better than your but my bandwidth dropped from 600-700 KBps to 130-150 KBps since a week ago. ISP woes. --KrebMarkt 12:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Help for notability claims

Every week, the New York Times publishes a manga best seller list, seen here. Being on that list can help a manga reach its notability requirements. It may be worth it to see if someone can regularly check the list and then add a sourced statement about it in the appropriate article. You can see an example of that here (see the last paragraph). I don't know that I will be able to check every week, so I am posting it here so more than one person can keep an eye on it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the NYT bestseller list helps a manga series's notability as that is not one of the criteria listed at WP:BK. And adding "bestseller" status to WP:BK has been rejected multiple times in the past. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A best seller is much more likely to have multiple reviews simply due to the fact that it's selling really well. That means more people notice it, and more people are likely to write articles about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ALso, the NYT sometimes does reviews of manga as well, and those will be linked from entries on the lists. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its the same reason why raw sales numbers aren't listed. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it notable. Part of that falls into recentism. With a few exceptions, something new is always going to sell more than it will a few months from now. The page is still useful for sales data of notable manga though.陣内 _Jinnai 06:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Still useful though. I've done what I can to get the NYT bestseller list bumped up in priority in my CSE; there is no static URL, unfortunately, to target for the latest results. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 16 May 2010 (GMT)

List of US anime simulcasts

I just found this article, and I'm not really sure what to do with it. I considered prodding it based on WP:N, but I'd like the opinion of the project.--十八 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia alternatives?

I'm interested in writing anime & manga-related articles, but it may not always be easily apparent whether the articles I am interested in are acceptable to the Wikipedia policies for inclusion. Of course there is nothing wrong with the fact that Wikipedia is not for everything that I happen to be interested in writing about, but does anyone know of alternative wikis more dedicated to anime & manga? Such a site my be able to deliver more content and less tension and conflict between users if like-mined folks meet up. Any advice? --Bxj (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the unintentional (I'm sure) jab at editors here, there are multiple anime/manga Wikia sites. Animepedia seems to be a likely candidate, doing a quick search there.[9] Of course, you could always just start your own site. Hosting is cheap and the mediawiki software is free, then you don't have to worry about any rules, or conflict (as you can just block anyone you disagree with). Thing to keep in mind with Wikipedia (and even Wikia) is that when you have people collaborating, there will be tension and conflict. It's how the people involved respond to them that makes it a good or bad experience. Wikia has just as much drama as Wikipedia at times, including people banning their proclaimed "enemies" from Wikipedia just because they can. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link suggestion. Just to clarify, I've meant to make no jabs and I hold no ill-will at the editors. I recognize that Wikipedia, as an Encyclopedia, naturally needs to draw boundaries somewhere for their inclusion criteria. There is nothing unreasonable or wrong with that. --Bxj (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, are you referring to A Nobody? He banned people who had previously harassed him on Wikipedia and on various Wikia. And you don't just block everyone you disagree with, there links to various deleted post proving he had faced harassment before doing that. And no reason to bring that in here, when it had nothing to do with any question. Bxj, please look at the link [10] to see a list of every Anime and Manga Wikia, and its current state. That should help you greatly. People are usually very friendly on the Wikias, you not likely to encounter any drama at all. Dream Focus 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The poster specifically mentioned wanting less "tension and conflict" so I felt it appropriate to note that he would find that anywhere, including Wikia. I did not mention any specific names, you are the one who brought that here and named a specific user name. There have been quite a few instances of folks doing that over there after being in a dispute here or other places, as there is no real central control over most individual Wikias. I've also seen plenty of instances of unfriendliness, drama, etc. Many of the same folks who edit here, edit there, as do many users who were banned here. It has fewer rules, and far less recourse/help if you do experience conflicts. It is just as ripe for drama as any other forum or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Wikia as well. Just to clarify, though, the Animanga Wikia is actually a hub wiki linking out to more specialized Wikias, and as such only takes articles on series or franchises when there is a Wikia devoted to that series/franchise. Personally, much of my recent spare time has been going into work at the Yu-Gi_Oh! Wikia... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RS check

Over at WP:VN#encubed. I've been having a discussion there and the site is borderline case so if someone can come over and check it.陣内 _Jinnai 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Boys Over Flowers

This article (and really series of articles) is in massive need of attention. The main article was in really bad shape, and still is. I did a quick, rough clean up for formatting and removing some OR, but it has a ton of excessive plot, fan OR/gushing, etc.[11] It is also lacking references and seems to be split up way too much in terms of the various adaptations (many of which aren't particularly notable), while lacking in a proper episode and character list. It has few references either, despite the series being one with quite a bit of coverage[12] due to its popularity and likely the controversial nature of the story. Could be a good project for a couple of interested editors, or at least a good clean up project if someone has the time. Anyone want to take this one? I hated the thing myself (heroine was an idiot, IMHO), so not particularly desiring to do much more than what I've done so far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I think the biggest issue is the character list which has too much detail and the obvious lack of reception/impact sections.陣内 _Jinnai 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there is also a lot of OR in the summaries and the plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Translate This Page?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/VISITOR

I think this needs a page on the English Wikipedia.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The first feature length 3D CG anime? Might be some grounds for that. Nobody seems to have actually remembered the work itself, though. Doceirias (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PNT 陣内 _Jinnai 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs significant coverage in reliable sources, first, and it doesn't look like even ANN has a listing for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's listed in The Anime Encyclopedia, and, if it's notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia, it's notable enough for the English Wikipedia.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Link? I couldn't find it, and no, its being on the JA Wikipedia is irrelevant. The English Wikipedia has notability guidelines, most others not so much.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The links on the Japanese Wikipedia are notable sources. Please stop with this notability nonsense. Obviously, the anime is notable enough to have an article. It was broadcast on WOWOW, for Christ's sake.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It has two links. That doesn't make it notable. Nor does where it was broadcast. You may think it is "nonsense" but it is how this Wikipedia work. Article topics must be notable, and the film must meet WP:NF and WP:N before it has an article, or it will just get deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

English sources may be hard to come by. I looked in my CSE under a variety of search terms, and turned up pretty much zilch. Strange too - Western sources are usually fairly interested in 3D tech (look at how much coverage the Final Fantasy movie got). Does anyone have a paper copy of The anime encyclopedia? It seems to be mentioned on page 218 & 707. --Gwern (contribs) 17:06 29 May 2010 (GMT)

I have both editions. Which one are those page numbers for, the 2nd? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Whichever one Google Books is using, which is probably the 2nd. (But the index ought to list it.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:40 29 May 2010 (GMT)

It's actually mentioned several times in the book; it even has its own picture.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Books is using the 2nd edition, yeah. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay...it is mentioned in passing in several summaries (he likes to compare different works). Its actual entry is on 707-708, indicates that it was a 3 episode TV series/special that was intended for video but aired on WOW later and then repackaged as a feature length film. The entry is a short paragraph giving the plot summary, what I just said, and states that it was entirely computer animated. It does not confirm the claim from the JA Wikipedia that it was "first feature length 3D CG anime", nor does he even state that it was 3D at all. He also gives no actual review or commentary on it. Not really much at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhh... did you even READ it? He clearly states that:

1. It has computer animation that almost resembles "Supermarionation".

2. That it was the first feature-length anime project.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, it said ALMOST RESEMBLES not is "Supermarionation", and he never says anything about it being the first feature-length anime project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Something's wrong here. The ja article implies, eyeballing it and looking at it in Google Translate, that it was released in 1998. There's no way the 'first feature-length anime project' was released as late as 1998. There were scores - hundreds - of anime movies before then.

Google Translate does render '日本初のフル3DCG長編作品' as '3DCG Japan's first full feature film', so the originality must pertain to the '3DCG'. --Gwern (contribs) 01:40 30 May 2010 (GMT)

Lemon Angel

Could someone help me expand this page? For some reason, it originally redirected to Creamy Mami.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, is it notable? Seems better handled as part of Cream Lemon, which it is part of, so fixed the redirect to go there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, it is a notable anime based on a notable band. Leave it alone.-66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The usual practice is to have the original work & any adaptationq covered in the same article. So instead of 2 moving targets we have just one. What does an article dedicated to an anime adaptation can do that can not done within Cream Lemon? --KrebMarkt 19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an altogether very different work, with not much in common with Cream Lemon other than name.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

According to your own edit, it is an adaptation of Cream Lemon [13] - if it isn't, then there is no need for an article at all without actual demonstrable notability. You may not like it or may disagree, but at THIS Wikipedia it is what determines if a topic or work has an article, not your personal preference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, someone who doesn't even know what the show is is trying to tell ME (who actually DOES know what the show is) about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't seem to decide what it is about either. You made an edit claiming it was, now you are claiming it isn't related at all except for the name? Perhaps if you would be more truthful, others could respond better. Meanwhile, since ANN says it is part of Lemon Angel Project, the link now goes there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's RELATED TO both Cream Lemon and Lemon Angel Project.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridicules. Where are the sources making any such claim? —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now he is claiming it is the name of some band and is edit warring with multiple editors over it. I've reported the IP to be reblocked yet again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.idollica.com/lemon_angel/lemon_angel.html

http://www.songpresent.com/80s-g03.html

AND Lemon Angel has articles on the French and Japanese Wikipedias.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those links are reliable sources, and having articles on other language Wikipedias has not meaning as they may have different inclusion criteria than the English language Wikipedia. If the article is about the band, then it is a clear A7 speedy deletion. —Farix (t | c) 22:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The band has their own anime (two of them, to be exact). In fact, Lemon Angel Project is based on the real-life band Lemon Angel.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the idol group notable. —Farix (t | c) 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemon Angel Project is "notable", no? Look in The Anime Encyclopedia. Look on MyAnimeList.net. They'll all tell you the same thing.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the RPP - MyAnimeList isn't a reliable anything. The anime is listed in the Anime Encyclopedia, as part of Cream Lemon, and it does not support any of the claims you made about the anime being based on the group (its an adaptation of CL), nor that they formed a real band. Fansites are not sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already proven that Lemon Angel is a real band. Go look on the other Wikipedias. Go look on those links. Go look at the albums. Go look on eBay. Lemon Angel IS A REAL BAND.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And? Quite frankly so what? They still aren't notable, even if they do exist (though you have not actually proven anything at all...no Wiki is a reliable source either). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the idol group existed or not is irrelevant to inclusion. And the notability of another anime series has no influence on the notability, or lack thereof, of the idol group. The English Wikipedia has a set of criteria on which bands may have articles, and the idol group doesn't pass any one of them. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hentai article cleanup/improvement drive

Anyone willing to get "yukky"? I decided to start a much needed cleanup of the hentai articles starting with List of hentai anime. I've removed and delinked all of the red links there and started going through the remainder searching for sources. I've finished the A's and here are the potential AfD candidates if no other sources are found.

Adventure Kid (1 Mania review)
Ai Shimai AKA Immoral Sisters (4 Mania reviews, on for each episode and the box set) + French Animeland Special issue #9 Hentai
Ail Maniax (No sources found, Prodded)
Akiba Girls (2 Mania and 1 THEM reviews)
Alien from the Darkness (1 Mania and 1 THEM reviews)
Anejiru (No sources found, Prodded)
Angel Blade (5 Mania reviews, one for each episode)
Angels in the Court (1 Mania and 1 ANN review)
Angel of Darkness (2 Mania reviews, one for each volume)
Another Lady Innocent (1 Mania and 1 THEM reviews) + French Animeland Special issue #9 Hentai

I've attempted to redirect Kitty Media to its parent article at Media Blasters because it is nothing but a list of red linked titles. —Farix (t | c) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Angel of Darkness is pretty much a shoe in for being notable. Its discussed in Anime Encyclopedia, Anime Explosion!, The Complete Anime Guide, as well as several other books (both English and non-English). There is also the live action series, which likely has reviews. It's main issue is that almost all sources are offline due to its age. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So two reviews is no longer good enough? When did that happen? And some of these have more than that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think the ones with reviews from two sites (e.g. Mania.com and THEM Anime) would be notable. I'm not sure about ones with two reviews from a single source. I would volunteer to look for sources for them, except that I think TheFarix has already looked at the three sites that I know of that are reliable sources and have reviews of hentai (Mania.com, THEM Anime, and ANN (for older titles, since they stopped reviewing hentai)). Calathan (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep those with coverages from at least 2 different sources. I pointed to the two series in the list covered by the Special Hentai issue of the French Animeland. Note that Animeland & others French Anime/Manga websites don't do hentai review in a current basis. --KrebMarkt 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hentaijump.net 211.30.12.191 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It unquestionably fails WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 13:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? The reviewer for HentaiJump, Mike Toole, also does reviews for AnimeJump, which has been considered a reliable source for quite some time. --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Toole also just got a regular column on Anime News Network starting this week, if that adds to his credibility. Calathan (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He also apparently reviews anime for SCI FI Magazine and SCI FI Wire [14] and is a contributor to Otaku USA (not sure how to find a list of everything he has written for Otaku USA, but here is one thing he wrote [15]). I would think that would be enough to qualify him as a generally reliable source similar to the other people listed at WP:ANIME/RS#Individuals, some of whom are listed there specifically because they are contributors to Otaku USA. Calathan (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? It seems like AnimeJump is considered a reliable source based on the discussions linked above, but it looks like AnmaFinotera removed it from the reliable source page saying that she didn't think it would hold up in a FA review. However, Serial Experiments Lain was promoted to FA with it as a source, and it wasn't rejected in the review that demoted it from FA. AnmaFinotera, does the fact that you didn't include it in the sources you listed as questionable in that FAR mean that you now agree that it is a reliable source, or do you still have an objection to it? Personally, I'm of the opinion that Mike Toole is a reliable source due to his work for ANN/Otaku USA/SyFy, and that AnimeJump should be considered a reliable source by extension (since it his site) if it isn't otherwise considered reliable. And I would say HentaiJump (which was also his site) would be considered a reliable source for the same reason. Or perhaps only Mike Toole's reviews for AnimeJump and HentaiJump should be considered reliable, but other reviews by other reviewers shouldn't? Calathan (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As link suggester, I think both Anime Jump and Hentai Jump are RSes. Just dropping in to give my opnion. I will be busy until the beginning of November. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

After talking to AnmaFinotera about this on her talk page, she has convinced me that AnimeJump shouldn't be considered a reliable source in general. However, we seem to be in agreement that reviews by Mike Toole himself could pass WP:SPS due to his work for ANN, Animerica, Otaku USA, and Sci Fi Magazine, so I'm going to add him to the "Individuals" section of the reliable sources page. The only objection to that I've seen is from TheFarix above, but I don't think he looked into the issue enough, as I think someone who has been given a column from Anime News Network to write about old anime, and who has also been published in several different reliable source publications, would pass WP:SPS as an expert on anime. Calathan (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Milk Junkies AFD

Anyone care to weigh in on this? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cough, the whole AfD is turning into whatever Mania.com reviews being reliable so more input is very welcome. --KrebMarkt 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

SaiyanIsland.com reliability

User Chriswilliams has been insisting SaiyanIsland.com is a reliable source and has been undoing edits to remove the said source from the articles Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2 and Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series). I just need confirmation on whether he is right. If he isn't what do I do next? I did three reverts already and don't want to risk getting banned from editing. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest either listing it at WP:RSN or doing a RFC on the subject located on his talk page. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on his edit history consisting almost entirely of adding the link to this website to various articles and that no one else has ever used the website as a reference, it appears to be a case of linkspam. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

SaiyanIsland.com hosts illegal scans of various manga series. AFAIK such websites can never be used as general sources, no matter how reliable they are otherwise. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, per WP:ELNEVER 1. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 02:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER doesn't apply to inline citations or general references, only external links, so that guideline can't be used. In such a case, cite WP:VERIFY in that sources containing copyrighted material fail the criteria of a reliable source :) ADD NOTE: More specifically WP:SOURCES. Fox816 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and left him a copyright linking warning as well as a 3RR warning. As others said, would never be a reliable sources with the illegal material, but even without it, it completely fails WP:RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I also went ahead and took out citations of 'saiyanisland' added to Bleach: Heat the Soul (series) and List of Dragon Ball video games per his contributions. There may be more though. Fox816 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him and the site to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions, so hopefully nobody will be able to add the site in future. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're waiting for someone to review the blacklist report, the current links to SaiyanIsland.com (19 of them, none of which is in articlespace) can be seen at Special:LinkSearch/*.saiyanisland.com. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ergo Proxy cleanup

I've started doing some work on Ergo Proxy and I'm noticing that the formatting of the page is really bad. Could I get some suggestions on what I can do to improve the presentation of the page? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The big block quotation in the Story section should go under Production. The Distribution section is not necessary as all the information can be placed in the Media section under the respective topics, i.e. air dates of the anime should be presented in the text of the Anime. Some production pictures for visual OOU would be good. I think the sequence of the sections should be Plot - Characters - Production - Reception - Media which is roughly the same format as Serial Experiments Lain, an anime I always think of when I hear Ergo Proxy. I've never watched Ergo past the first episode even though I really liked it. I'll help out in general cleanup and stuff but as far as content goes I'm limited since I have no knowledge of the series. Fox816 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ADD NOTE: I already went ahead and made those changes in addition to introducing a better referencing system. It's now list-defined. I left help notes for the new format on the talk page or refer to WP:CITESHORT under list-defined references. I was having trouble editing content because of all the full citations in there so I just moved them all to reduce clutter. Hope that helps. I've also be darting in to help out when needed. Fox816 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its great you helped with the clean up, but I have reverted that last change to the reference format. Per WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency, and ArbCom it is inappropriate to change the article from the existing, established citation method (full, cite templates) to your personal preferred style without actual discussion and consensus on the article talk page. For now, proper reference clean up would be to fix the bare references to use the articles established method, then if you want to do the list-defined thing, get consensus on the talk page. Remember, calling it a "better referencing system" is your personal opinion, and to keep in mind that many other editors do not share that view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the current system was in disarray with improper formatting and some useless citations I didn't see that the article had a proper system since references were just thrown in there with tags, hence my change without discussion. I'll bring it up on the talk page since it appears to be that the previous system was an established system. Fox816 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were quite a few that were just thrown in, but since some cites were using the citation templates, that would be considered the established style as it was the first actually acceptable one used. A lot of times editors who don't know how to use any of the citation styles, particularly new ones, will just throw in the raw refs for someone else to fix later. (and I've seen experienced editors do it as well if they dislike the pages current style :-P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I started talk on the page to discuss the list-defined use which I believe the pros outweigh the cons. For section editing I see the problem of just throwing in raw refs in there instead of moving them down since it takes one more edit to do, and that may be more work for some, but even that is easy enough to fix rather than skimming through a thick brush of text and citation templates just to improve a sliver of content :PFox816 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Going on a wikibreak, I'll be sure to get back to this when I return. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article symbol

A consensus has been developed to use {{Good article}} on articles which have been assessed as good articles, which, like the featured article star, gives a visible symbol of GA-ness on the page for everyone to see. I gather a bot will be trawling the GAs soon, but if anyone would like the satisfaction of placing it on their own work, you know now. --Malkinann (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's well underway. Speaking of which there was a related discussion at WP:ASSESS and i should point at this script that shows articles quality rating in an elegant way. --KrebMarkt 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That script is also available as a gadget (and has been for a long time). G.A.S ^talk 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading that correctly that they are apparently planning an article assessment symbol for all articles...without any kind of wider invitation or notification of the discussion? Interesting...though same thing happened with the GA symbol...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment symbol for all articles discussion is still at early stage in contrary of the GA symbol discussion and it's currently stall. --KrebMarkt 07:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow external links to Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia?

The Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia is one of the biggest wikis on Wikia with over 40,000 articles, as well as one of the most active wikis there with over 200 monthly contributers. It has a substantial history of stability, and I feel it satisfies WP:ELNO #12 for an open wiki that can be linked. Any thoughts on this? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems little different from Wookieepedia, which is linked all the place. I don't see any reason to hold the YGH! wikia to a higher standard. --Gwern (contribs) 20:55 28 May 2010 (GMT)

It also has to meet other ELNO guidelines. such as if it's a fan site or so.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.' --Gwern (contribs) 21:36 28 May 2010 (GMT)

What point are you trying to make with that rule?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That Dinoguy is perfectly aware of your point, foresaw it, knows the relevant exception, and has already made a good faith effort to demonstrate that that wikia falls under the exception. --Gwern (contribs) 22:38 28 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm saying that there are other points beside #12 to consider, such as #3, #10, #11, and sometimes even #1 can be considered valuable (though i don't think #1 affects this one). let's not assume anything unless mentioned in his comment. He only was talking about WP: ELNO#12. but as previous comments before, there is more than jsut WP:ELNO#12 that stops wikia to coming in wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't see how #3 is relevant (wikias are exactly as vulnerable to malicious uploads or evil content as we are), nor #10, nor #11 since wikis are addressed specifically. (And #1 is just silly; of course a Yu-Gi-Oh wikia can provide more content than our straitened FAs ever could. In many respects, the wikias beat our article under any consideration - which has more real-world or reception information, Luke Skywalker or wookieepedia:Luke Skywalker#Behind the scenes?) --Gwern (contribs) 00:06 29 May 2010 (GMT)

ELNO #3 addresses websites which intentionally host malicious or illegal content. MediaWiki is hardened against intentional or malicious attempts to host malicious material, and I have yet to encounter anything which would be illegal on the YGO Wikia. #10 excludes open wikis by its very nature. #11 explicitly states that it is extremely limited, and also excludes open wikis by definition. And #1 is pointless to bring up; Wikipedia could not support a few hundred properly sourced articles about Yu-Gi-Oh!, much less the 40,000 and growing that are on the YGO Wikia. I also took this opportunity to review all other points of ELNO, and none of them apply at all to the YGO Wikia. As one final point, I believe it would be to our benefit to allow external links to the YGO Wikia; our own coverage of the franchise is dismally substandard, and linking to Wikia would, I feel, encourage contributors to improve our own articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it should be allowed. There are 40,534 articles on this wiki. Dream Focus 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I posted a request for comments from individuals outside the project at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to the request at WP:ELN. I first have three thoughts about editors' interpretation of the guideline:

The fact that open wikis are directly addressed in ELNO #12 does not exempt them from complying with ELNO 10 or 11. Relevantly, it is entirely possible for a website to be both an open wiki and a fansite.
ELNO #3 is not restricted to intentional malware hosts. If the site contains malware, we don't want to link it, full stop. Sites containing malware should be reported to WP:BLACKLIST.
ELNO #11 provides an extremely limited exception to the widespread ban on blogs, etc. It does not intend the ban on blogs, etc., to be applied sparingly. You need to read this as "Blogs, etc. are banned (but we might make an occasional exception for an expert)", not "Except in limited cases, blogs, etc. are okay."

As for the links: I think that carefully selected links to the best and most relevant wikia pages will, on balance, likely be acceptable to the community in a reasonable proportion of articles. Although it's a fansite, it provides a unique resource (far more information than Wikipedia should contain), and the information is generally encyclopedic instead of promotional.

However, linking to bad/unfinished/uninformative pages at the wikia site, or systematically spamming the link into every possible article, is inappropriate and will be opposed by the community. ELNO is not ELNEVER -- you are allowed to make exceptions -- but it's also not "ELwhateverYouWant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

#3 is for intential malware sites or sites that do not clean up maleware. A lot of sites have ads that may contain malicious code; we don't ban them if they happen to have 1 new ad that pops up with that. If they have a history of it and of not removing them, that's another issue.

#12 does exempt it from #10 and #11 unless they are linked else it would be listed with them. The one exception is a wiki that is designed with the primary intention of being a social networking site or fansite. A wiki that is designed to be for reference material akin to an enclyopedia is not seen as a general fansite if it is a open wiki that also meets #11. Attempts to push it on there are just attempts to try and elaywer any wiki from ever appearing as and basically negatiing that exception.

The only thing the yugioh wiki may have issues with would be WP:ELNEVER #1.陣内 _Jinnai 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the YGO Wikia has any problems with ELNEVER #1; while it is true that they host a large number of copyrighted content (similar to most other entertainment Wikias), they do not knowingly host or link to full chapters of the manga or episodes of the anime; the closest they come to violating copyright at all is linking to YouTube videos of LittleKuribo's Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (and, based on what I've read, 4Kids has seen the videos and actually doesn't have a problem with their existence). In addition, as a member of the Wikia ACG, they also follow wikia:animepedia:Fair use policy (in name if nothing else; considering the 35,000+ fair-use images, it would take a considerable amount of time to add a specific fair use rationale to every image for every use 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is true, although where ELNO 10 is concerned, wikis are not inherently a social networking platform, regardless of the fact that they can be used as such - this is where I was coming from with my comment. I simply misunderstood #11; my comment about it being very limited should therefore be ignored. I'm not sure about the fansite aspect, since it isn't very clear when exceptions can be made, although I would argue that this case is very similar to the case to allow linking to Wookieepedia, which has been allowed for several years now (a comparison Gwern drew in his first post above).
This is another one I misunderstood, then. However, as I pointed out above, it is very difficult (if not impossible) for an attacker without server access or access to an administrator account to successfully plant actively malicious code of any type on a MediaWiki installation (assuming the webmaster hasn't done anything stupid with the wiki's configuration, like enabling uploads of executable or zipped files); if it was possible, it certainly would have already been discovered and an exploit attempted here on the English Wikipedia.
I already addressed this in point 1.

And of course, no one here is arguing for simply spamming a link on every page possible here. The only one I personally would add would be on Yu-Gi-Oh! itself, and possibly a link to the Main Page in the YGO navbox (but only if I could find a precedent for such a link in other navboxes). Any others I would not feel comfortable adding due to a conflict of interest. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

~nudge~ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems linking to it. As for navboxes, I don't think there are any that link to wikis, unless its about the article itself. I think a couple related beyond the main of that could be linked to it, or rather to an appropriate page on the site. I don't think they all need to be (such as the episode listings) though.陣内 _Jinnai 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dinoguy, if you're waiting for some dictator to give you a specific OK, you'll be waiting a long time. I think you ought to just go ahead and make the edits you want. --Gwern (contribs) 23:28 4 June 2010 (GMT)

Not particularly, just seeing if anyone wants to follow up on any of the comments above. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this Space Yamato article allowed?

I believe this article Space Battleship Yamato planets should be deleted it relies solely on primary evidence and List of Space Battleship Yamato characters needs a clean up. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well to delete an article should be last resort, I feel a condensed merge into Space Battleship Yamato might be best. As for clean up there are tons of artiles in need of clean up, sadly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be the same as deleting it. There is no possible way to condense it. The article is fine, and the information can be confirmed by anyone who has actually watched the series. If you sincerely doubt any of the information there, go to the main article, and post in the talk page, asking for someone who has seen it to confirm. Summaries of the episodes will probably mention some of the information also. Dream Focus 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the information is inuniverse and non-notable, weeding the article out and saving the basic summary of the article is better than it being deleted if it is to be kept. I dont doubt the information is true that is not the issue here though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that something is "factual" does not mean that it need not be referenced. If there is any dispute about these statements then certainly they need sources to support them. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Young Magazine 30th anniversary

If anyone can read Japanese, Kodansha has put up quite a bit of material for Young Magazine's 30th anniversary. There's an entire chronology and list of works, as well as free issues for a limited time. Arsonal (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks nice, weirdo plugins aside. I'd do a recursive download of all that, but then, I don't read Japanese. --Gwern (contribs) 22:57 7 June 2010 (GMT)

Kirara (manga)

This article is strange to me, it was made in 2008 and went unnoticed for almost two years as an incorrect redirect. Anyways I am looking at ANN and this manga/anime according to them was someway involved in 4 other countries besides Japan, does that sound like it is worth looking into? The article is currently prodded for notability issues and lack of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah, worth looking into. I've seen both French and German coverage for the licensed versions of the work listed at ANN (and I want to say Italian as well, but my memory may be wonky). It's the work Toshiki Yui is best known for in the West, which is how I ended up tracking this down, once upon a time. All that is assuming the ANN work is the one this article is supposedly about -- impossible to tell, given just how little context there is. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Checking Googlebooks, it's mentioned in The anime encyclopedia 2nd ed, page 343, so that sounds like a good place to start. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly im no expert on a 2nd language so im limited to english articles, I feel notability here though internationally and see potental for the article if those references can be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability fixed, Still need infobox + whole Manga section with Japanese & non-Japanese publishers info. --KrebMarkt 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay. Good work, Kreb. I'll add working on the German reviews to my plate. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Toshiki Yui article

I just spent a couple of days rewriting the Toshiki Yui article, adding new material and references. It's a lot better, but still needs more work, as I mention on the talk page. But I'm making progress, slowly. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I see some minor formatting issues, not complying with WP:LOW that can be quickly fix. However, I also noticed several references to unreliable sources, such as the Japanese Wiki, ANN's encyclopedia and TV Tropes that should be either replaced or removed. References to Amazon.com are acceptable, but we would much prefer a reference to a non-commercial website or the original publisher's website. —Farix (t | c) 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the issue, but you're flat-out wrong. If you had read the talk page (but it doesn't seem you did), you'd see why I cited the Japanese Wikipedia: it's a source for Japanese knowledge of Japanese names -- and for that it is completely authoritative, and by definition. The same holds for the other sources, which are used to produce a LIST OF BOOKS by Yui. Japanese booksellers are the best source there is for such information. They are reliable because they are selling the titles they describe and they get them right. But I don't think you read that part, or, if you did, you didn't think about it.

Fortunately, I have just about finished my editing and work on this article. You now have my permission to remove all the references, thereby reducing the article to useless and unreliable garbage, they way it was before.

I am of two minds here. One is to fight out this issue with you, Farix -- and this is not the first time (remember the manga article?) -- and the other is to let it go. Did you notice the "under construction" flag on the page? OF COURSE there are errors and glitches -- that is what I'm fixing. Now, how about you come over to the page and rather than telling other people what to do, do some work yourself?

Frankly, I think I'll probably let it drop. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, please keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Fox816 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry TP, but Farix is completely correct. NO Wikipedia is a reliable source, that is the absolutely overwhelming consensus of the entire community. As I'm sure you know, the JA Wikipedia is just as editable by anyone, same this Wikipedia, however it has even less oversight. The Japanese Wikipedia is no more an authority on anything than the English one is, and your note on the talk page really doesn't change that. Anime News Network's encyclopedia is also not a reliable source as it is completely user editable with little oversight. This is the consensus of this project per discussions here, at various FACs, and discussions at WP:RSN. Bookseller resources for publication of dates is fine, but just linking to a bunch and claiming it is the source of the bibliography is not a valid use for those sources and not a good source. I have gone through and removed all of the unreliable sources already noted. It is not "trashing" the article. Wikipedia does have requirements for reliable sources, and being an article for a living person, we also much consider WP:BLP. I do also find it a bit disconcerting that you appear to be citing yourself in your edits?[16] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Tim, your response is completely on-called for. The issue with the manga article was because you kept arbitrarily changing the established formatting of citations in the article because you didn't like the citation templates. Now you posted this notice here for, what I resume, to gather suggestions on how to improve the article. But instead of taking my comments about what needed to be improved on the article, you throw another of you hissy fits. This is what I becoming to dislike self-proclaimed "academics". You think that because of your credentials, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines don't apply to you or that you shouldn't have to work with the "regular folk". —Farix (t | c) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can a Wikipedia Administrator import this please?

The information on the Wikia is treated the same as what is on the Wikipedia, as far as people being able to take it. The Special pages there have "export" which anyone can use, of course, but only an administrator can use the import command. Will an administrator please import http://hetalia.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Axis_Powers_Hetalia_Episodes to the Wikipedia? The article for that is currently blank. List of Axis Powers Hetalia episodes By importing it, the history is preserved. The names of the contributors over there, are the same names they use over here. Dream Focus 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to just be one contributor there who could just as easily copy/paste it in themselves if they have an account here. However, considering the wiki page has inappropriate and excessive non-free images, I'd think it should be more carefully used than just a straight import. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, an import would require deleting the page currently there. A history merge would be out of the question because WP's own article was developed independantly of the Wikia list. It would be better to simply rewrite the list as an actual episode list with proper sources, especially considering the concerns on the content's reliability in the AfD (which should be allowed to run its course before any action like an import is performed anyways). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Import, importing from Wikia is not possible: upload import is disabled completely and transwiki import is enabled between WMF wikis only. WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51#Making it possible to import edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia and Meta to Wikipedia has more background. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Content Dispute at Edward Elric

At this discussion, editors are having opposing views on the content. I am championing one side but I really think this should be established by consensus. Please place your views on the topic on the article's talk page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also a discussion redirect at Talk:Winry_Rockbell that I started as well. Opinions would be greatly appreciated. Fox816 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Digimon Frontier

A IP user is reverting my removal of the flags in the template. I left them a note on their talk page but I have a feeling they are just going to ingore it and keep on reverting. So if someone could just keep an eye out, it'll be a big help. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Article rename

People have suggested I come here to ask about a consensus in renaming Ojamajo Doremi to its international and better-known title, Magical DoReMi, as by manual of style for anime and manga articles. Our conversation ishere, where most of us have reached an agreement that we should rename the article. However, this might prove to be an issue for the other installments of Ojamajo Doremi, neither of which have been released in English. Toei's official English website lists the following installments as Magical DoReMi #, Magical DoReMi 3, etc. but it's ultimately 4Kids Entertainment that decides these titles. lullabying (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I replied, I think renaming it to Magical DoReMi is a good idea as it is most commonly used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For those who are curious the link is here -> Talk:Ojamajo Doremi#Move Request - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Article is now renamed and moved to it's new title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Legend of the Supermutants

There is a heated discussion here over the article title I thought should be pointed out on tis work project. Sarujo (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

Can I get an admin's assistance to correct the title of List of Romeo X Juliet characters to lowercase the "X"? There is a move conflict when I attempted it. This will conform it to other Romeo × Juliet articles. Arsonal (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done G.A.S ^talk 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Arsonal (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mangafox.com

I'm once again petitioning that this website be added to the WP:BLACKLIST. (Discussion) —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. They are supposedly "negotiating" with third parties, but I have no expectation of this coming down in their favour, at least not any time soon and without many changes (i.e. removal of their entire library and starting again on a legal footing ala Crunchyroll). Shiroi Hane (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought it already was? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick text search says it's not, though there's no reason for it not to be ATM. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird...anyone know if it was removed or the last request just denied? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It and the other scanlation aggregaters weren't added due to opposition by a few people from this very project. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Digimon series titles

WP:MOS-AM says to use the name commonly known in English, in this case with the Digimon series, that mean Digimon Adventure 02 should be titled Digimon (season two) — since they've been labeled as seasons rather than different series. However, the MOS also states "If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world." Google hits for Digimon (season 2) is 133,000, while Digimon Adventure 02 has 11,300,000 hits, meaning that Adventure 02 is more known than (season two). So does that mean that the current titles stay or should they be moved? MS (Talk|Contributions) 03:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the names Adventure and Adventure 02 were non-existent when they first aired in the US, but I think they've been used more often in the years after. Even though they aren't per sé licensed, the fanbase has somewhat popularized the two names. Arsonal (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless the printed media or reliable online sources use the fanbase's names, we shouldn't use the fanbase's names. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While that is true, the series hasn't been mentioned as frequently in sources in recent years. Additionally, they generally don't distinguish the significance of each of the five existing seasons. In some sources, they have indeed adopted the names Adventure and Adventure 02 that have been popularized as a method of disambiguation. It would be difficult to provide a burden of evidence whether a certain season is regarded either way as Digimon (season X) or by it's original Japanese title. Arsonal (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Saiyan (Dragon Ball)

It was my understanding that this article was a redirect Back in '09. But it seem that this is a submarine resurrect as no project banners are found in the talk page and a link is absent from the subject template. Sarujo (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected it back to Dragon Ball. If the redirect is restored, I'll send it to AfD. —Farix (t | c) 13:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that as it is a valid and I'd expect popular redirect. I would try to get it indefinite full protection.陣内 _Jinnai 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the redirect was undone so I've nominated it for AfD. No problem with recreating the redirect once the AfD is over. But I have a feeling that it's better to remove the article entirely to prevent it from being restored. —Farix (t | c) 02:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

He also changed Super Saiyan to redirect to the restore Saiyan article, despite the former having been redirected per consensus to Dragon Ball. Someone may want to keep an eye on it. For now I've restored it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Same editor is now trying to get the DB fans stirred up again on Talk:Dragon Ball by questioning the lack of a DBZ article, despite the continued consensus for its merger long ago to DB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Will fans ever stop beating on that dead horse? —Farix (t | c) 03:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not until they stop re-releasing/re-factoring DB and squeezing as much money out of it as possible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk is also in the AfD. Someone should watch the redirect for Dragonball Z.陣内 _Jinnai 03:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile DBZ split discussion once again. --KrebMarkt 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That discussion started by another User:PWeeHurman sock and should just be removed per usual procedures for dealing with banned people. Was I the only one who recognized that infamous name? ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I guess Dragon Ball won't avoid every single wiki problem including socks. --KrebMarkt 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes

An IP editor keeps inserted unsourced episode information into List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes. I'm already filling out a 3RR report, but someone else needs to remove the information. —Farix (t | c) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor has returned using different IP to continue adding in the unsoruced information. The 3RR report seems to have attacked no attention. —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone else want to remove the unsourced information again? —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

~~Ask for a temp semi-protection.~~ NM. Looks like you already did.陣内 _Jinnai 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonfree images

There is a discussion regarding the large number of nonfree images in List of Rurouni Kenshin characters. Everybody is welcome to participate and give their opinions. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are now 12 nonfree images, down from 20. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, we are debating which images get deleted and which ones get saved. I would like additional input on that question. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How bad is too bad a pic?

Allen4names (talk · contribs) is reverting me about the use of File:Yoshiyuki Sadamoto 1.png in Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, calling it so crappy that it can almost 'be considered vandalized'.

(I've asked a Swedish speaker in #wikipedia-sv to ask the [17] for a better version, but apparently it's a frame from a video. It's possible to get better images than just a single frame, but one needs the video and some technical skills.)

Since Allen4Names regards it as useless, and I think there's no problem including it, and this looks like an esthetic issue - which are notoriously insusceptible to discussion - I think it's a community issue. That means you guys. --Gwern (contribs) 19:33 22 June 2010 (GMT)

First reaction? "Wow, that's a crappy screen-cap." Make of that what you will. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really distorted and the majority of it is green rectangles. I'd say try and locate one of better quality, and, if possible, one that isn't a side-shot. Even if it looked better, barely any of his face is showing, and would probably only be suitable if there was no other alternative. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, we have no pictures whatsoever of Sadamoto besides this; nor, since Sadamoto is still alive, are we allowed to use any better Fair use pictures.

I did look on Flickr, but the only CC Sadamoto pics there are NC (and so useless to us), and they aren't very good either. --Gwern (contribs) 21:21 22 June 2010 (GMT)

Those would actually be fine in my opinion, even with the microphone, since his entire face is shown. Try asking the photographer to release one (preferably the second) under CC-BY. Of course, let the photographer know that CC licenses are irrevocable. Arsonal (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it wouldn't call it "vandalized" but I'd also say it was "useless". The image is low quality, a side shot, and really could not help anyone look at it and go "Oh, so that's what Sadamoto" looks like beyond the color of his hair. Including it just wouldn't do much to enhance the article at all, and while "free" images are not restricted in terms of non-free, I don't think it should be used purely because it is there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Yoshiyuki Sadamoto 1.png looks as if someone used the fill function in Paint or other software to vandalize the image so yes I consider the image to be corrupted and not merely "bad quality". – allen四names 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF and not accuse editors who have been editing for years longer than you of being vandals. --Gwern (contribs) 18:34 23 June 2010 (GMT)0

That and to not WP:BITE newbies for edits that aren't clearly vandalism or contriversial (unsourced) POV edits.陣内 _Jinnai 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I can vouch for the fact that video corruption can definitely look like that (especially when you're using buggy codecs). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed Yoshiyuki Sadamoto from my watchlist. Please do not imply accusations I did not make. – allen四names 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FICT

A new version is up for up for discussion. Considering the recent Saiyan issue, I think it might be worth looking at.陣内 _Jinnai 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari image dispute

An editor has attempted several times to remove a recently added image to Futanari claiming that one of the characters appears to be a minor and the image is therefor illegal. This has also resulted in an ANI discussion. A separate discussion about the image is being held on the article's talk page. —Farix (t | c) 13:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonphase as reference

I encountered lately a bunch of articles using Moonphase as reference to assert anime adaption of manga or light novels. I think a discussion on that source is warranted since there is no prior discussion about it in the project archive.

While Anime News Network cites this website for news, i am not uber fan to use it directly as ref because it doesn't answer the question on "What makes it, a reliable source" in a convincing way. My personal position is to switch with an ANN news ref whenever possible as ANN always catch up albeit a bit later. --KrebMarkt 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help archiving

Anyone know how to archive This page? I tried Webcite and checked wayback machine but it seems nothing can archive that picture. I need to archive it for sourcing as it changes on a regular basis. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, most of the archivers will not archive images, presumably for copyright and space reasons. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Webcite should archive images. Archive.org is hit or miss.陣内 _Jinnai 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried webcite, didn't work. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Jinnai was suggesting that you could, say, take a screenshot of what you need, and then upload the screenshot to something like Imgur and then ask WebCitation.org to archive the raw image URL. (Alternately, you could look into sending the screenshots to WP:OTRS.)

It might be interesting to try to have WebCitation archive the actual .swf; eg. http://www.webcitation.org/5quhcMfSS . But that doesn't seem quite to work. --Gwern (contribs) 04:35 2 July 2010 (GMT)

I think it doesn't archive Flash? --KrebMarkt 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Flash with WebCite. Archive.org sometimes archives Flash. Arsonal (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Webcite should archive flash; they have in the past and were setup to overcome that particular limitation with archive.org. I've never know archive.org to do so. They do sometimes have issues.

Why are some pages not archived successfully? A page may not be archived for a number of reasons. The page owner may specifically prohibit archiving of their content through no-cache / no-archive tags, or via a robot exclusion policy on their site. The content may be inaccessible from the WebCite® network.... Also, the content may be unreadable by the WebCite^® archiver (complex JavaScript based pages, or ones involving browser checks sometimes cause our archive engine to fail).

陣内 _Jinnai 00:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

.hack (video game series) PR

There is Peer Review started for the original series after merging the games together. Mentioned because its a wikiproject PR and might not get listed on our project page.陣内 _Jinnai 02:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Demographic question

What are the target ages for Morning, Afternoon, and Evening? I have the impression they're aiming at slightly different slices of the market, but the articles all just say "adult men," unlike articles for other seinen magazines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which Video Clip to use?

For the Case Closed article, I'm thinking on using a video clip of the anime (like School Rumble did) and need to decide between the two. One clip has the character tranquilize another character to reveal who the murderer is and is about 1 minute long. The other clip is an extended version of the first clip containing the explanation and the part where the culprit confesses(4 minutes long). Both these scenes occur regularly throughout the series. Also if clips are discouraged, I will not upload it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Which scene has the most critical commentary? Per WP:NFCC that's the only reason you can put a clip in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess it'd be the first one. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any critical commentary on either of these scenes in the article? --Malkinann (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to fit it in but its a scene parodied by other animes. I could remove the clips if needed. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the reception section, you could go 'a particular scene where Conan uses his bow tie to foil the evildoers (see video clip) has been parodied by X Y and Z series, which has been pointed to by Smith and Jones as an example of the enduring popularity of Case Closed.' And whack in a bunch of citations supporting the commentary. For another example of where a clip is well-supported by critical commentary, have a read of Dennō Senshi Porygon. --Malkinann (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 72.184.150.97

Just flagging this user for observation since they seem to have a habit of entering fabricated information, often in anime-related articles. I am not familiar with all the articles they have been editing, but I do know for example that FUNimation has not licensed the Live Action Negima dorama[18], and that Disney is not making a Bleach movie[19]. They also seem to be inserting random actors in anime and random anime VAs in films, although again being unfamiliar with some of the subjects I am going on the fact that most of their additions seem to have been reverted. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ayu Mayu

I have repeatedly removed a copyvio link from Ayu Mayu to the website 1000manga.com, which is either onemanga.com under a new name (given that the domain was registered a couple of months ago) or a clone of onemanga. —Farix (t | c) 03:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a clone, and I've suggested it be placed on the spam blacklist. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also opened an SPI case on the two accounts adding the link to the article. They share a lot of similar editing patterns on more than one article. —Farix (t | c) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be one of the revolving set of clones of OneManga (there's another set for MangaFox) that come and go as the seasons change, and as the sakura petals flutter away in the ethernet winds. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The spin-out of Onemanga for mature and borderline contents. They did that to keep advertisement from Google ad agency in their main website. --KrebMarkt 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noted it in Andrensath's blacklist request. Unfortunately, I can't link to the forum posts making the connection because onemanga.con has already been blocked. I've also been keeping an eye on WRFEC (talk · contribs) repeated unblock requests, which are still insisting that the website is perfectly legitimate and that the scanlations are hosted under licenses. —Farix (t | c) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the proposed deletion process working?

I have done a quick review of all of the articles proposed for deletion during the month of June. Of the 48 articles were proposed for deletion during the month of June, 5 were deleted after the prod expired, 8 were redirected, 10 were relisted at AfD (four of which were previously from the redirected group) with 4 deletes, 1 keep, 2 redirects, and three still pending leaning towards redirects. The remaining 29 were deprodded for various reasons. Of course, this probably isn't an accurate picture of whether the proposed deletion process is actually working given the disruptive mass deprodding we had over a week ago. —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For manga series PROD = Fail because it has has +90% chance to be DEPRODDED for good, bad or no reason.
For manga series REDIRECT = Fail because redirect is done by the arbitrary action of one editor thus can be easily contested then again for good, bad or no reason.

I suggest pre-talk here in WT:ANIME for manga series before sending article directly to AfD bypassing PROD. Pre-talk will help to reduce stuff eventually send to AfD & to give some flow control so we won't have too much AfDs at once. --KrebMarkt 14:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The main aspect here is that of the articles that are deprodded and get sent to AfD, they frequently get unanimous support for deletion or restoring the redirects. So since these articles are going to go to AfD regardless, would it be better off the abandon the proposed deletion process altogether and go strait to AfD. There has also been the proposal floated every once in a while that an article cannot be deprodded without an explanation addressing the points brought up by the proposal. —Farix (t | c) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that proposed deletion is working in the sense that it does what it is intended for, but that the high percentage of articles being deprodded shows that these are not articles that prod should be used on. Basically, my understanding behind proposed deletion is that it is for articles where you don't expect someone to contest the deletion. This is not at all the same thing as articles where you have a good case for deletion. For anime/manga articles there is a subset of users who seem to think that most anime or manga should have an article, so you can reasonably expect there would be someone contesting the deletion of most articles. Thus, prod probably shouldn't be used on them, and they should instead be taken directly to AfD (or redirected first, if the artilce seems like it could make a good redirect). I think for anime/manga articles, prod should be reserved for subjects that are exceptionally non-notable, without any of the characteristics that people argue are reasons to keep articles. So for example, having a notable author, being published in multiple countries, having run for a long time, or being from a major magazine like Shonen Jump are reasons people sometimes give to keep an article, and thus articles on manga with those characteristics should be redirected or taken to AfD rather than prodded. It doesn't matter that none of those are valid reasons to keep an article, all that matters for prod is whether you expect someone to contest the prod. On the other hand, an article with none of those characteristics (e.g. not be a notable author, not published outside Japan, not long-running, not in a major magazine, etc.) might be a good candidate for prod. Calathan (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PopCultureShock Manga Recon disbanding

That here The Farewell Roundtable

Note the website & reviews will remain available for a while but no more new reviews. --KrebMarkt 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Started archiving the reviews here but i have been blocked after archiving 100 reviews. --KrebMarkt 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Concentrate on items newer than 2008. Someone may want to contact them and ask if they can get archive.org to go over there site again.陣内 _Jinnai 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

KM: blocked? Do you know with respect to what were you blocked? (ie. did WC block your IP from requests, or was it email-based?)

Also, I wrote a plugin for the Gitit wiki which parses articles for URLs and requests WebCitation and Alexa (from whence Internet Archive gets its copies) to archive a page. It wouldn't be too difficult for me to turn that into a tool which runs off URLs piped in on stdin, and one could get the URLs using a tool like wget. Would that be useful? --Gwern (contribs) 04:28 2 July 2010 (GMT)

IP block because archiving too many page = Suspicious activity with a message inviting me to retry later which i did. Now only 370 reviews to archive. --KrebMarkt 05:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. That's a problem. It's a lot easier to write a program without rate-limiting than with. I don't suppose the email included any information about acceptable rates? The technical guide doesn't (other than suggesting to run one request at a time, which I'm guessing you were). I'm going to email them and ask. --Gwern (contribs) 06:08 2 July 2010 (GMT)

Down to 290 reviews. Note that this number includes only page with the Manga reviews tag and there are more to do if i include manwha reviews & editorials. --KrebMarkt 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving done for manga related reviews. Over 500 pages archived. Do you want it moved into an Animanga project sub-page? --KrebMarkt 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be helpful. If you don't mind, please archive the rest of PCS. Thanks. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

From my point of view, i finished with the archiving. If you can point me where the archive should be move within the Animanga project space. --KrebMarkt 07:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/PopCultureShock archive or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/PCS archive?? Put this under the reference library category on the navbox? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

If it's not too much trouble, could someone archive the Laon, Raiders, Spice and Wolf novel, Sugarholic, Freak, Moon Boy, 1001 Nights, Bring it On!, You're So Cool, Croquis Pop, Forest of Gray City, Jack Frost, Sarash, Kieli novel reviews and this article? Some are manhwa, which reviews are difficult to find in the first place. The other two are novels, which aren't listed under "Manga Reviews", but are important to manga articles here. The last's root article seems to be gone, but I'd like the information on-hand. It'd be very helpful. Manhua reviews are tagged under "Manga Reviews", so would those have been archived, correct? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All Manwha, Manga, OELs, Novels, DVDs, Movies, Best of lists, Commentaries, have been archived. Do CTRL+F on PCS Archive to get the archived review. There was no big hurry to archive the reviews & editorials but we have no idea how long PCS will remain online. --KrebMarkt 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone tried contacting them to see if they would allow someone else to host the site? Or at least get a copy of the site before they take it down? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to program a bot to assign PCS archived links to the links already present in our articles with |archiveurl= and |archivedate=? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

That might be too complex for a bot. The only way I can think of is to use AutoWikiBrowser to generate a list of articles citing PCS and manually adding the archived links. Arsonal (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do it manually. --KrebMarkt 07:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Media Network RS?

I tried to add Advanced Media Network to the RS list. AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) took it down saying, "that one did not have enough discussion nor was it about adding it to this lsit [sic]". Previous discussion: here. I hope to determine whether Advanced Media Network meets WP:RS and whether it can be posted on our list of internet resources. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

WP:RS/N discussion. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Update: Site is deemed reliable for reviews and interviews by WP:RS/N. If there are no objections, I will add it to the reliable online sources page. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

No objections, then. Yay another source. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No objections too. Well just hope it won't go BOOM like PCS. --KrebMarkt 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

~~Added~~. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Addition to online list reverted by Jinnai. More comments at the RS/N discussion would be helpful. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō‎ genres

I've been disputing a couple of the genres that were listed at Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō‎ since they are not obvious. However, another editor is claiming that the work itself is the source for the genres and that it is silly the require another source that explicitly states the genre. —Farix (t | c) 14:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor is now arguing over whether ANN's encyclopedia is a reliable source or not. —Farix (t | c) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can one of our Japanese linguists look over this Hobby Channel interview and see if Yoshioka Takao or the interviewer mentions any specific genres? —Farix (t | c) 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the interview I can see that talks about genre.陣内 _Jinnai 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he is still insisting that the work itself is the source for the genres and that the genres doesn't need additional sourcing. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Does he cite specific timeframe in each episode?陣内 _Jinnai 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but now he is claiming that it is on me to prove that it is not of those genres, even though under policy, the burden of proof is on him/her. He/she has even attempted to remove the {{fact}} tags from the disputed genres claiming that the dispute is "resolved". —Farix (t | c) 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the added genres, left him a 3RR warning, requested protection for the page, and left a note on the talk page. It seems several editors have told him that he must verify his claims and have explained various policies to him, but he also appears to be ignoring them all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I went around in circles pointed out that he/she needs to be the one that provides reliable third-party sources since the burden of proof is on those who want to include information and not on those who want to exclude. However, he didn't want to hear any of it. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)