Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Adding WikiProject Japan to articles

I have been asked on my talk page why that isn't tagged to articles. I have no clue myself and wondering if I should let the user go ahead and tag articles with it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan is WikiProject Anime and manga's parent project, so tagging is not really necessary here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to be that you're far more likely to find a subject matter expert on an anime or manga in the anime project, so why double-dip when WP:JAPAN already has such a broad scope? YMMV, but I think that was the reasoning behind it. --Malkinann (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It's no different from other WikiProjects. The video game wikiproject doesn't tag with their parent WikiProject Games.∞陣内Jinnai 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree per above. There's already enough junk on talk pages that the burden is on anyone who wants to add more. If the best case for it is 'why not?' that's not a good case above. --Gwern (contribs) 00:23 10 October 2011 (GMT)
Other than our core topics, absolutely not. There is way too much overlap between the two projects, so tagging articles with both tags is highly redundant. It also keeps down the "banner spam" on most. This is also why most articles are not also tagged by the WP:COMICS, WP:TELEVISION, and WP:ANIMATION projects as well. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if Maki Nishiyama is an exception to this general rule - she is an actor who has appeared in many live-action dramas, hence WP:J, but she will also appear as Nabiki Tendo in the forthcoming Ranma 1/2 live-action drama in December, which is where the WP:ANIME connection comes in. --Malkinann (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. She's done more general japanese roles than manga/anime specific.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

MangaLife review website expired

MangaLife expired. So all the links became deadlinks.

However, I found a 2010 archive of most of the reviews: http://web.archive.org/web/20101104165928/http://www.mangalife.com/reviewsarchive.htm

Is there a bot that can replace the deadlinks with the archived links? Extremepro (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can ask H3llkn0wz but I don't think this is a job for a bot. Allen4names 17:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Production parameters in Japanese episode list template?

I was thinking that because of the promotion of List of Buso Renkin episodes we might need to either update the documentation for {{Japanese episode list}} to reflect the practice there or add a couple of extra optional parameters. I would like to introduce the optional parameters storyboard and animation director in addition to the already-existing "written by" (which is apparently used for screenplay) and "director" (which seems to be used for episode directors). Storyboarding and the animation director role seem to be common tasks that are switched around from person to person every episode, so are good candidates for having dedicated parameters instead of using auxiliary parameters. -Malkinann (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't hurt to add them as optional parameters. i do fear it might make things to intricate...but then again, might not.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't make anything too cimplicated (as BreadNinja said) and refs are used, etc. I thing it'll be good to have. ~TenTonParasol 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I would have to oppose the inclusion of storyboard and animation director into the episode tables. This will create too much clutter when added along with episode director and writer. At the current screen resolution (1024x768), List of Buso Renkin episodes is overly crowded and many of the dates and titles are wrapping creating a rather unsightly appearance. —Farix (t | c) 16:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hrm. When you bring up that point, then I'll have to agree with you...Honestly, I can't see those kinds of problems, my resolution is huge. ~TenTonParasol 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding information on staff into episode lists, either in a dedicated production section or in the list itself, helps give the lists a real-world perspective. By adding a dedicated, optional, parameter for storyboarding and animation directors, which are important tasks in anime that can be swapped around episode to episode, it would encourage their addition, and a real world perspective overall. --Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
They overly clutters the table and should not be encourage. Quite the opposite, this type of clutter should be discourage. Tables that are as cluttered like List of Buso Renkin episodes should not be promoted to featured list status. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
So you prefer 'uncluttered' lists that are almost wholly in-universe? --Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I do prefer uncluttered tables. But how are the lists "in-universe"? The only thing "in-universe" about a list are the summaries, and that is already a small part of the overall list. Adding storyboard and animation directors won't make the list any less "in-universe" but will make the tables much more cluttered, specially on smaller screens. You make lists less "in-universe" by adding more real world details into the lead section. —Farix (t | c) 22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should list every single storyboard and animation director as they often a one to three people. Though if it gets too cluttered, imnot so sure that should be the only reason.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The anime episode lists are in-universe because they typically do not include information on the staff of the anime, typically limiting themselves to airdates and music. In practice, information on anime staff other than voice actors and directors has been devalued by the project in the past, being removed from main articles as being too listy, and not having a place in WP:MOS-AM. Who storyboarded and who was the animation director for the episode are pieces of real-world information that are usually readily available, they are anime-specific roles that are part of the production even as screenwriters and directors are for live-action productions, and can change on a per-episode basis - List of Guin Saga episodes, List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi episodes are some additional examples. Farix, how do you propose handling the information rather than in the table itself, but in the list article as a whole? --Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There will always be stuff we can add. For example: key animators; theme song performers, their arrangers and their composition; episode storyboard artist; character supervisor; SE director; BG art director (does not go under the animation director). I can go on and on about the number of secondary-level production staff members many of which can be series specific, such as a historical researcher or location director for anime which are trying to tie into history or very closely to an existing location. In addition, what this does is emphasizes only the production staff. It completely develues the translation (notably English translation) staff by not even listing their production staff.∞陣内Jinnai 23:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Information on any anime staff other than voice actors and directors has been devalued by the project - whether it is Japanese or English. Perhaps the manual of style needs updating with an encouragement to add production and release sections to anime lists? --Malkinann (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I always did wonder why episode lists did not include something about production, like in The Simpsons (season 1), 30 Rock (season 1), or Prison Break (season 2) (The filming section specifically, although that doesn't exactly apply here. But...). Of course, my choice of lists may not be the best. I mean, I've wondered if there was production information available, why didn't we include it. ~TenTonParasol 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I just viewed the example list at 1024x768 and it looked fine to me. Short of a couple really old systems a couple friends have, though, I don't know anyone who uses that low a resolution anymore. I don't see a problem with including the additional two fields in the table. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The sum of human knowledge for free and for everyone ... with decent hardware. Somehow I don't find that line of reasoning convincing. If it turns out consensus finds the tables too cluttered with additional fields, we can still add additional tables to the lists. That would be acceptable to everyone, no? Goodraise 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Add "a paragraph where necessary" to that and I definitely agree. Alright, I've agreed to three different things so far, but I've been swayed three times, no? ~TenTonParasol 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Which ones are proposed atm because I can think of:
  • Episode director
  • Animation director
  • Storyboard artist
  • Guest appearances/Musical guests
  • Original Story (in cases where - mostly filler - the original author is not credited)
  • refs
Now right now Buso Renkin uses 4. If we exclude refs because of the relative space use (whether we include them in the update or not), i think any more than 2-3 is too much. There is wrap on my monitor at 1440x900 not only with people's names, but titles like #24 have to wrap. It's not enough to say its too much, but if that article used 1 more it would have. If they were added and documetation was updated to make it clear not to use every parameter even if you can.
However, I believe a lot of the stuff there isn't nessasary. FE, writers tended to be the same group so it makes me question why that info was nessasary to list in the episode list? How does it help the understanding that just listing the group as a whole in prose doesn't? Also animation director could become cumbersome if too many of them have 2-3 or more animation directors.∞陣内Jinnai 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Just storyboard writer and animation director.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. For the Buso Renkin list, the writers consisted of people for the screen play, there was a separate category for storyboard which was excluded from the list due to clutter. Some episodes had the same storyboard and screenplay and the position was renamed to storyboard director. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
BN, if we are listing "most important" directors, an episode director has more control and say over an episode that the storyboard artist or animation director (asuming their is a seperate animation director for each episode). It would be like not listing the author, but only the illustrator of a book. That doesn't happen. So that means we'd need at least 3. Then if there is, as DZ says writer is important, that's 4. Finally, moving the refs to their own section is has become common on lists to help clean them up. There is a general disdain for link clutter on lists and if it must be, to move it away from words. However, its not essential, but at the same time it doesn't take up much space.∞陣内Jinnai 03:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if it's for that reason, then i could see why we shouldn't list them. I don't find them that necessary in the table, but if others do, then i'm not so sure. It's not a serious problem to me to not include them. I did have an instinctive feeling we shouldn't.....but i dididn't want to outright deny it.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The episode writer, director, storyboardist and animation supervisor are all key staff on an episode (and are given prominence in the ending credits). What about an alternate way of listing them - rather than in their own columns but as a semicolon separated list in a reduced size font at the bottom of the episode summary, similar to what was originally done for episodic staff on Uta Kata? Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe its because its below the summary or the lack of a clear divider, but it makes it look worse because there's no clear distinction between summary and credits. I may have an idea though.∞陣内Jinnai 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't think they're that relevant, yes key parts into making any episode. However, they're not the big ones that initially imagines the episode, they're sort of the end process.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The storyboardist is the person who translates words into layout and motion so they are a vital link between the script and the cel; they are like a combination of choreographer and cinematographer in live action terms. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How is dedicating an optional parameter for animation directors and storyboarders any different from using the three auxillary parameters currently provided? If there are dedicated parameters for animation directors and storyboarders, then perhaps more people will be inclined to use them, improving the list's real-world perspective. It would also improve the intuitiveness of doing so, because it's easier to remember what a parameter called "storyboard" is for than aux1, 2 or 3. Perhaps one of these needs to be renamed "storyboard". --Malkinann (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do they even use those auxillary parameters?Bread Ninja (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, and I don't know how to check this - I've used one in List of Toward the Terra episodes for the storyboarder. --Malkinann (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we could get by with:
  • The basic 3: Episode #, title, (Japanese) airdate. - these are essential for every article.
  • English airdate - essential for those with broadcast release
  • 3 auxilary ones which can be used for episode director or other staff
  • ref - its common for many tables where refs are needed to move them to 1 location and clean up the table
Other possible:
  • A 2nd episode count - there are enough anime that have different episode count/orders that a 2nd dedicated one could be added.
  • I would also wonder if there could be a way to edit the Japanese air date to be release dates for those which wouldn't have an air date (mostly hentai, but some older titles which no records exist).∞陣内Jinnai 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think if they allowed to put "Original Release" for thing like OVAs would work nicely instead or "original airdate".Bread Ninja (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's why I say 3 aux might not be enough in some cases if one of them has to be canabalized for that. I can't think of a specific example offfhand, but if there was enough relevant info for episode directors, animation directors and storyboard artist to be relevant, you couldn't have all of those if there were just 3 aux if one was consumed for original release date.∞陣内Jinnai 04:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well they'll have to be interchangeable, for OVAs that have been aired in english release, and obviously not in the original. Or maybe never aired at all and only been released.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be possible to have parameters that can change the output of airdate to release date, but it would probably be easier to set up separate parameters for both.∞陣内Jinnai 16:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, currently commented out on the documentation page is "commented out because I'm not sure of current practice: , and for original video animations, this should be the date the episode was first released on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, etc". I'm not fond of the idea of simply having three "Aux" slots - it would be difficult to remember, by the time you get down to episode 10 of 24 which aux is for which use. It would be more usable if a dedicated storyboard slot was added. --Malkinann (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps it should change. If it was released before being aired, then the that date is more important to note as it is the first public viewing. That's the whole point of the table, to note the first.∞陣内Jinnai 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the MOS

From this, I've worked up a possible addition to the MOS about episode lists and real world information - please contribute your thoughts here. --Malkinann (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:CWW use in episode lists

I would like the project's opinion on this. Malkinann added {{CWW}} to List of Working!! episodes based on the notion that the history is broken since the episode list was originally split from Working!!. Should this template really be placed on all episode lists that were originally split from their main article? Or is there some sort of alternative that we can place a template like this on the talk page or something?--十八 11:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the template should not be on all lists that were split from their main article, only those that were split not according to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia, the proper way to attribute a split, to comply with the requirements of the GDFL and CC-BY-SA license, is by hyperlinking the original page either in an edit summary saying something like "from Working!!" or on the talk page as can be seen on Talk:List of Tramps Like Us chapters. I placed the template on this page because the attribution has not been given, and this kind of non-attribution is a bad practice that should be brought to peoples' attention. --Malkinann (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
{{CWW}} should not be be on an article. In fact, it is a completely unhelpful "cleanup" template because it notes a "problem" that requires a "fixed" that cannot be done. If there was a lack of attribution in the edit summary when the article was originally split, then the attribution should be noted on the talk page. But a template like {{CWW}} should probably be sent to WP:TfD. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Your completely erroneous assumption that the "problem cannot be fixed" is patently false - as I have already explained above. Actually reading the editing guideline might help. --Malkinann (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
And with this pair of diffs, the problem has been dealt with, according to the guidelines at WP:CWW.
It is necessary when splitting episode or chapter lists with summaries to put in the edit summary 'copied from source article', as the Wikipedia terms of use, CC-BY-SA, and GFDL require that a hyperlink attribution be made. This can either be done at the time, or patched up at a later date by using the template {{Copied}}, or both, as we do for translations from non-English wikipedias, with the template {{Translated article}}. Given that episode and chapter lists are considered acceptable daughter articles, and are typically incubated in the main article for several months, people here need to be aware of the proper procedure for copying within Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tetsujin 28-go problems.

It seems some Tetsujin articles have to two corresponding Japanese articles when they should only be one a literal translation of the english article and a second one with a Japanese template of Tetsujin. Tetsujin 28-go (2004 TV Series) and Tetsujin 28 FX are good examples.Dwanyewest (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit on Outlaw Star discussion

Bread Ninja copyedited Outlaw Star, and I feel that her edits changed the meaning of the text and I reverted. As the GA review is underway, I'm concerned that the bold, revert, discussion phase may be taken for instability, as she still feels that the areas that I reverted need more clarity. More opinions would be helpful. --Malkinann (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here...asking for more clarity is sucha bad thing? I understand the revert but it seems like no one wants to compromise where it can malkinann. Its either revert and leave it as is and not make a single edit at all or keep the original copyedit. You also seem to realize that the intention was to copyedit. So I don't see why compromising shouldn't take effect.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When a copyedit introduces incorrect information, it's not all that helpful. Could you please have another go at drafting a copyedit on the talk page, so that incorrect information is not reintroduced into the article at this delicate stage of the GA review? --Malkinann (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
sigh....you only listen to half of what I'm saying....Bread Ninja (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe this... Featured articles, good articles, and especially good article nominees should not be treated like raw eggs. (If nothing else, that would go against the spirit of WP:BOLD.) If an article is too instable for GA-status, then it should not be awarded that. End of story. Goodraise 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you - featured articles should never be frozen articles. I am not treating the article like a raw egg - I am simply adhering to WP:BRD. We are in the discussion phase, additional voices would be helpful. My concern is that an edit war over copyediting at this time would constitute instability, leading to the article being delisted over something that can be avoided. --Malkinann (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
If you agree with me that good article nominees should not in any way be treated differently from other articles, then why did you mention the review? An article's stability (or lack thereof) is a measure (one of many) of the consensus its content has. Moving disagreements over it to the talk page to avoid a failed nomination would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. And it wouldn't be likely to fool a GA-reviewer anyway; these people tend not to be stupid, after all.

To make this perfectly clear: I have absolutely no problem with you asking for more opinions here. I do have a problem with you bringing the GA-review into it. Sometimes an editor shows up to disagree with you while you've got some nomination going and causes it to fail. That's Wikipedia. Deal with it. Goodraise 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Goodraise here. Unless one of you is willing to let the edit or revert of the edit go then the article is unstable because its being brought here as a contentious issue.∞陣内Jinnai 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In the case of good article nominations, BRD should be adhered to to avoid edit wars. Bread Ninja is not one of the major contributors to the article - nor am I. I feel that for her objection to the prose to potentially derail the GA review would be a shame, which is why I am attempting to encourage her to put a draft which doesn't introduce incorrect information on the talk page. I recall that the article on lolicon was very productively unstable as a result of its good article reassessment, and it was still failed for the stability criterion. Further opinions on the phrasing would be appreciated to facilitate the discussion and to avoid the potential of an edit war. --Malkinann (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It was one revert and we are currently discussing it.....there's no edit war and honestly not much happening to potentially derail ga status unless I revert what you did which I haven't. Better not to worry about what ifs and just work on getting this discussion going. This isn't about ga.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon merge discussion

There is an important discussion regarding if Sailor Moon (English adaptations) should be merged into Editing of anime in American distribution. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?. Input from project members will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

SoDak Con Entry Assistance Request

SoDak Con could drastically use a few more eyes to help with making it more wiki-appropriate to avoid article deletion. Wasn't sure if this project group would be able to assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoxtank (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Split

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2)#Split regarding the split of the article into its own separate article. I'm still confused about the organization of the seasons, so it might be good if users discuss it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also got a split discussion at List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers, splitting off the bulk of the 2009 and 2010 lists, that needs more comments. --Malkinann (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dab link content

This month this project is on the list. I participated in the video games for September and we were able to fix every link there so I'd like to see if we can do so here too.∞陣内Jinnai 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried it out but every article I edited from the dab solver added them to my watchlist. Is there an option to prevent this? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Manually unclick it or temporarily disable it. Otherwise try contacting User talk:JaGa. He/she maintains the dab solver.∞陣内Jinnai 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone we've gotten rid of all the dab links from that group in only a few days!∞陣内Jinnai 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Legend of the Millennium Dragon

Can you guys make Legend of the Millennium Dragon a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested the IP come here from the ref desk to find out if the film is notable enough. If so, I'd be willing to create the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure it is seeing as ANN reveiwed it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've created a stub. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming in question

Back in my unexperienced days I saw the article List of Hollows in Bleach and changed Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion) to List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Now that I see my error in this. I suggest we change both to Hollows (Bleach) and back to Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Bread Ninja (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How about merging them somewhere instead? Goodraise 08:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
where do you want both articles to be merged to? Both their size is pretty big. Given that there isn't a lot of third party. Reliable sources helping though they do appear to be spinoff.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
How about here and here? Goodraise 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
And how do you propose we do it? The angels don't seem to be recurring characters as they get one to two episode appearances, however appear in multiple media. As for hollows the article is incredibly huge...I don't think we can merge at the moment. But....if there's a way then I support.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if trimmed, size might be an issue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem. The angels get merged here. And size? Well, we can always trim some more. Goodraise 08:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

They're really large. A very large set of characters.....we could do what naruto did and make a seperate slidt for antagonists?Bread Ninja (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Naruto antagonists is a redirect, as it should be. I don't care if the pages are really, really, really, really large. It doesn't matter. We can always trim more. It's just a matter of doing it. And it doesn't matter how big the cast is either. Less prominent characters get less coverage. Yet less prominent characters need not even be mentioned. Goodraise 09:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's where content forking starts. For an on going series its incredibly difficult at this point for bleach having a large cast. And it does matter how big articles get. Character listings is part of coontent forking, if the list gets even bigger? Are you familiar with bleach?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the merge looks do-able after seeing the Naruto list. Looking over both Bleach lists, alot of it could be trimmed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of List of Saint Seiya characters, which is a bit of a mess at this point. To reduce article length, another editor decided to split some of the content into List of Saint Seiya anime-only characters, List of Athena's Saints and List of Saint Seiya antagonists. Was this a bad move? Trimming seems difficult and the main article still promises to grow as, among other issues, there are still individual character articles that need to be merged. Cyn starchaser (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles need third-party sources to survive in the long run. Creating articles without a decent amount of third-party sources is asking to have your work deleted. Best to merge such articles on sight. Can spare a lot of inexperienced, yet well-meaning editors a lot of work and frustration. Goodraise 15:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
if someone is willing to provide a preview of how it would look like, then we can collaborate on which character is relevant for more.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Also lists are treated differently from articles for size concerns.∞陣内Jinnai 00:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
When put together, there is one reference to a third-party source in these articles, but that does not mean such sources don't exist, only that there is still a lot of work to be done here. If, after research, no sufficient amount of third-party sources comes up to justify the articles then, I'll merge back the content. Thanks for the orientation, everyone. Bread Ninja, a collaboration would be interesting. I'm not sure how the article should look, though. Cyn starchaser (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
True, it doesn't mean sources don't exist. However, merging isn't deleting. AfD is a sort of exception in that it requires the nominator to look for sources too. You are no more obligated to look for sources before merging articles than you are obligated to provide sources before splitting one. Goodraise 15:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Still, I think it's best if I search first. I've already had a couple of disagreements with the editor who made the splits and I don't want to risk the possible merge being reverted on sight. Thanks again for the explanations! Cyn starchaser (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes at Teenreads.com

I encountered a 403 message when I checked one of the references at The Knockout Makers. Hopefully this is temporary but I thought everybody here should know. Allen4names 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but it's not really applicable here since that banner isn't used with this project's articles for the most part. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Finished the split of the Naruto lists

As part of rearranging the fit the Japanese's release of the seasons, I created List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), List of Naruto episodes (season 3), List of Naruto episodes (season 4), and List of Naruto episodes (season 5). In the meantime, I redirected the other lists to List of Naruto episodes and managed to reduce the weight from the main list a lot. I'm not sure if I have to directly remove the FL rating from the seasons 1-2 and season 3-4, so I left them start status. I don't know what other fixes they need, but I'll continue working in the lists tomorrow. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just ask one of the FL directors to take a look at it. By the way, I think you mean size, not weight. Goodraise 08:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
They all need the template {{Copied}} on their talk pages to preserve the edit history of the articles, to give attribution to the people who wrote the episode summaries. WP:Copying within Wikipedia can tell you more about this. --Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I started FLRCs for the two former lists here and here, in case anyone from the project is interested in commenting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

small move in question

I had asked in here whether the OST of solid state society should be merged back to the main film article. Yes, rather small but I'm also looking for help in fixing the article. Please feel free to look. (Btw...this is bread ninja. Had a name change.)Lucia Black (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Does the Artvision database count as a reliable source? It contains information from a large number of Japanese voice actors affiliated with it and could be accepted as reference more than an episode owing to its accessibility despite being in Japanese. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As in, the voice actors themselves are supplying the information, and the database is otherwise editorially controlled? Well, the voice actors are kind of experts on the topic, so if that is the case, I say list it as an RS. --Gwern (contribs) 17:27 15 November 2011 (GMT)
If they are commenting on shows they worked for (and possibly for shows they applied for) then its fine. Anyone is considered an expert on themselves so long as its been confirmed those are the VAs. However, its still best to find an English source of equivalent or better for that info..∞陣内Jinnai 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with List of Birdy the Mighty: Decode episodes

Myself and another person have gotten into a disagreement about whether the "pre-airing special" that aired before Birdy the Mighty Decode:02 is the same thing as the episode entitled "Between You and Me". This discussion has taken place solely on Anime News Network's forums (see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1555353), but has spilled over to Wikipedia, with the other person editing List of Birdy the Mighty: Decode episodes to support their position and me editing it back. My opinion is that the pre-airing special and the original unaired episode are separate things, both of which were included with the Birdy the Mighty Decode: The Cipher DVD. The other person disagrees, and says that they are the same thing. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the pre-airing special had "prologue" written in katakana, while Funimation has labeled the original unaired episode as "Prologue" in their streams, but I think they aren't the same thing. Both myself and the other person say that the official site for Birdy the Might Decode supports our position (see http://www.birdy-tv.com/dvdcd/dvd_cipher.html). My opinion is that the site lists both an unaired episode and a separate pre-airing special, with "prologue" in katakana for the pre-airing special. The other person's opinion is that it lists an original episode and designates that as the same thing as the the pre-airing special with "prologue" in katakana. Any help in sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. Calathan (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So what is the difference between the two beyond the designation of prologue?∞陣内Jinnai 04:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
My thought is that the pre-airing special was either a recap of the first season, or contained staff/cast members talking about the second season, perhaps with some preview clips of the second season (or perhaps both some recap and some previewing). I'm trying to obtain a copy of it to see what was actually in it. I don't think the pre-airing special was released in the U.S., and I don't think it was an actual episode in terms of having a plot (unless it was perhaps a recap episode). The person I'm in a dispute with disagrees, and thinks it is a version of the episode "Between You and Me", which was the original episode included on the Birdy the Mighty Decode: The Cipher DVD. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've now obtained a partial copy of the pre-airing special, and have confirmed that it contains clips of people (I assume the voice actors) talking about the show and a recap of the first season. I've linked to some screen captures from it at the ANN forum thread linked above. It definitely is not the same thing as the original episode "Between You and Me" that was included in the Birdy the Mighty Decode: The Cipher DVD. I'm now convinced I am correct that the two things are different, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to convice the other person, who seems really set in their opinion despite the evidence. Calathan (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. We can mention it in the prose, but it shouldn't be in the list of episodes. My guess is if its on the DVD set it'll be as a bonus feature.∞陣内Jinnai 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It is included on the DVD of The Cipher, which also includes the original episode that the other person thinks is the same thing. I agree that the pre-airing special should not be listed in the episode listing, as it isn't really an episode, just a promotional special. Calathan (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fortdj33 removing WikiProject banners from visual novels

I saw this happen to a few yesterday and it seems he's been continuing today. There has been no discussion about the removal of these here as they have been long-standing and it seems to be a concerted effort.∞陣内Jinnai 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#What_topics_we_cover says the project includes visual novels that are part of the same franchise as anime or manga, or are related to anime or manga. If he is removing the project banner from articles on visual novels that are not part of a franchise that includes anime or manga, then I think that is fine (unless we want to add all visual novels to the project scope). On the other hand, if he is removing the project banner from articles on visual novels that are part of the same franchise as anime or manga, then that probably should be reverted. Calathan (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a discussion at User_talk:Fortdj33#Video_games_and_visual_novels_tagged_with_WP:ANIME where people have explained to him which visual novels are in the scope of Wikiproject Anime and Manga and which aren't. Since it seems like he understands which ones are in the scope and which aren't, I would assume he is only removing the banner from artciles that aren't in our scope. So I don't think there is a problem here (unless you've noticed any cases that seem incorrect). Calathan (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should adopt the VN TF as a join wikiproject TF between us and WP:VG. The questions raised are asked almost as much probably more here as they are in VP:VG (assuming there is a need for a larger body than those who are part of the TF). I can start another discussion about that.∞陣内Jinnai 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, newbies are delicious.  :( --Malkinann (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If I really wanted to have done that I would have made a report on him. However, he's not a newbie. He's been around since Jan '06. That's why I brought it up here rather than on his talk page (as I would have if he were a newbie).∞陣内Jinnai 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
He is apparently a newbie to WP:ANIME, and civility is not limited only to newbies. Prospective contributors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource, and nothing scares away potential contributors quicker than hostility. Complaining about his actions here before even attempting to break the ice with him in person is an action which presumes bad faith and is bitey - one I see all too often happening on WT:ANIME, which fosters a harmful culture. --Malkinann (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
When you go and en masse change stuff, that is not considered kosher either. That's something a long-time Wikipedian (regardless if they were a newbie to a WikiProject) should be aware of. Anyway, the point is moot as he is - per our current scope - within our guidelines.∞陣内Jinnai 00:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Assistance to revive article

Recently, I dealt with WP:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider SD, which has been closed as a redirect to Kamen Rider Series with no prejudice against recreation once sources can be found.

I've come here because I know that this is notable (four different manga series, one OVA, three video games), but Neelix who has been going after several articles in the subject area lately (another couple of articles on the various Kamen Rider manga were deleted via PROD and I eliminated a few into redirects to just avoid deletion) because these manga, video games, and the anime movie are several decades old and I cannot exactly find reliable sources on my own. I have found the various ISBNs for the manga collections (Mighty Riders: ISBN 978-4257905363, ISBN 978-4257905370; Shippu Densetsu: ISBN 978-4257905127, ISBN 978-4257905134).

Now, can you guys help me find reliable sources concerning the manga releases and the OVA (ANN entry here) so the article can be restored?—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

a new parameter for japanese episode list

I put a discussion up on here to see if we can add a parameter that translates the kanji if it were ever different from the liscenced english title. it would be a great help if some people put in their thoughts.Lucia Black (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry added wrong link. I just fixed it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

it would be great if more would put their 2 cents.I think this is really important parameter that can affect many episode listsLucia Black (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
moved to Template talk:Japanese episode list#Add TranslitTitle parameter?
RTitle is the parameter you're looking for.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read what RTitle is meant for. That is NOT what I'm looking for. I'm asking for a translation parameter alongside the kanji and romaji parameter when the japanese title differs both in language and translation yet at the same time, not officially known in english.Lucia Black (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Putting a separate parameter just for the fact that some dubs radically change the episode title is highly unnecessary in my opinion. Also, placing another entry of text on the second line of this template will just make things cluttered. RTitle is so rarely used that you should just use it instead. I've implimented RTitle on various pages, because trying to shoehorn in all of this extra data is just highly unnecessary when you can just use an already existing parameter, particularly because it works so well for what you want it for anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
its for putting literal translation to the kanji, we do it for almost every title that has a radically different title. And I highly dought it'll be cluttered. It would practically act as a nihongo template. Using the Rtitle parameter would give undueweight as it would act as an official alternate title. You're thinking about this too casually.Lucia Black (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about it casually because it is a lot of work to make up a new parameter when one rarely used one is perfectly fine. And the only reason you are saying it would be undue weight is because you are only believing that the RTitle parameter should only be used for an alternate official title, when there's absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from using it as the place for the literal Japanese translation.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No its not perfectly fine. Its undue weight because it presents itself as an official english title. The Rtitle parameter bolds it and puts it next to it. The more you speak, the more it sounds like you misused the Rtitle and don't want to fix it if the proposal sticks. If not, you should have no problem with a new parameter. It should only be used for english alternative titles because that's what the description in the page asks. I'm sensing a lot of bad faith.Lucia Black (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No. RTitle doesn't bold anything and it is not specifically meant for any particular usage. If you read the template documentation, you would see that it says

An unformatted [emphasis mine] parameter normally used to add a secondary English title, for instance [emphasis mine] if the same episode had more than one official English release under multiple names... It can also be used to insert a reference immediately after EnglishTitle.

There is nothing there that says the text is bolded or you can only use the parameter for secondary dub titles. If you look at the pages where it is bolded, you have to add the bold formatting yourself. I am not opposing a change because I have used RTitle in a specific way that only you say is incorrect. I am opposing a change because we don't need to change it because RTitle is exactly what you want, but it's just on the line above it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The template passes it off as a secondary title equal to the official english title. The main problem is that it bolds it aand puts it next to the english title. The parameter I propose is meant to go alongside the kanji and romanji and it makes sense....there's no reason to go against it, if it means causing less confusion. Literal translation would be perfect for it, instead of rtitle which bolds the title alongside the official english. And that's another thing, translation of kanji doesn't mean secondary english title.Lucia Black (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to this statement here. I will be copying it over to Template talk:Japanese episode list#Add TranslitTitle parameter? and responding to it there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits at the Cell article

I recently recreated an article, Cell (Dragon Ball). Another user added a large amount of plot summary and excessive details. Now I am aware of WP:OWN and therefore would like to have some input by other users. I do not think these edits are an improvement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the user at his talk page for now (see here). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the article of its questionable material (and turned Tien Shin Han into a redirect, again). It appears that the content was copied from some other Wiki-like project, anyway (possibly es.wiki).—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
These kind of edits happen quite often on popular series. I usually just undo them using "Excessive information" as the edit summary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have done it myself, but I thought this might have come over as me defending my article, so came here. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality article checks

These articles have caught my attention and am wondering if anyone wants to take it up and fix them.

Current list (All articles were only skimmed)
  • Delisted
  • Delisted
  • Tokyo Mew Mew - Quick skim found link rot for the episode airdates. (Will thoroughly check later)
Sourced with anime_list.at.infoseeker.co.jp
  • Madlax - I see there are citation needed here
Sourced with anime_list.at.infoseeker.co.jp

I'll be checking other "quality" articles as well for the same and will update the list when I'm free. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the main problem with the Naruto seasons was how they were organized. Shouldn't they be separated?Tintor2 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of airdates, is http://cal.syoboi.jp/ considered a reliable source? It's not listed on WP:A&M/RS either way. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I always avoid using cal since I doubt its reliablity. As for Naruto, the organization is probably up to consensus. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the Naruto seasons are based on the English release rather than the Japanese one, as such version was collected into five DVD series. I'm not sure why is the English was chosen over the original, but I suppose it would be better to separate them, and then it would immediately lose its status.Tintor2 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You may wish to use the WP:Checklinks tool - it checks all the references in an article for 404 status and tags them at the same time. --Malkinann (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Did archiving at List of Bleach episodes (season 5).Tintor2 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Crossed it off. The Naruto episodes catch my eye for FLRC at some point. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Done Featured Lists skims. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please tag the dead links in these articles with {{dead link}} so that readers of the articles know which ones are dead? --Malkinann (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a new step at WP:FAR, introduced since the FAR of Serial Experiments Lain:

Raise issues at article Talk:

In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

There are a few talk threads on WT:FAR and the archives of WT:FAR since this step has been introduced, discouraging perfunctory attempts. --Malkinann (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's basically an attempt to try and resolve things informally instead of dragging a page through what could be an unnessasary process.
Also, DZ are you going through all of our lists/articles or just a few?∞陣内Jinnai 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm stopped at Marmalade Boy chapters. I was going to go skim through the rest when I have time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I finished splitting the Naruto lists using TV Tokyo's style.Tintor2 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have used anime_list.at.infoseeker.co.jp as a source for Japanese anime airdates since infoseeker.co.jp seems reliable. I was wondering if it should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. I have a list of its archives here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would meet reliability. It's basically a portal like Yahoo.∞陣内Jinnai 01:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Planning on FLRC Soul Eater

Someone told me I shouldn't be quick on submitting FLRCs so I'm giving a heads up as I plan on submitting Soul Eater. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

With Soul Eater - I feel you're holding the plot summary-updatedness to an unrealistic standard - keeping up with the Japanese release, not the English release. Could you please use specific {{fact}} tags rather than the banner? What needs sourcing? --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious enough so I only put fact tags in the lead. As for the summaries, I suppose you are right. I just assumed an editor would read it fan-translated online. As for my high standards, I just believe Featured articles/lists has to be the best of the best, always updated and refed. Alot featured-s drop in quality after their nominations. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not "obvious enough" - when I looked at the list, it seemed that all of the 'normal' things to cite had been cited - release dates, companies involved. I don't think the article is so obviously poorly sourced that the banner tag is useful. Could you please replace the banner tag with specific fact tags? I feel that requiring an editor to seek out illegal means of reading the manga to keep the article up to date with the Japanese release is wrong. Waiting for an official translation would improve the accuracy and verifiability of summaries as well. --Malkinann (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Release dates for volumes 17 and up remained unsourced. I didn't say it was required, I said I just assumed meaning I'll take back my word that the plot is a problem. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies - I didn't catch that you'd accepted my argument that requiring a list to keep up with the Japanese release is unrealistic. I've updated the tagging to help people understand what exactly is needed for the article. --Malkinann (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Adopt Visual Novel Task Force as a joint WikiProject TF with WikiProject Video games

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to go ahead with the joint task force was reached.

Given the previous discussion, I believe this should be done. I realize Fortdj33 is prefectly fine as of now removing the tags. My point is though, that these titles are very much linked to the anime and manga subculture moreso than some of the topics under our scope currently IMO. It gets to the point this is often the more logical place to turn to for a broader input in many cases than WP:VG on many questions specifically because of the subculture linkage. However, these are still ultimately video games, and that's why I am proposing this as a joint WP TF.

EDIT: If someone wants to post notices at WT:VN and WT:VG it would be appreciated. I will be gone the rest of the night.∞陣内Jinnai 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would support this for the same reasons you give. The task force would definitely benefit from being under both projects. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Support as a VG member with interest in these; since a large number of these are Japanese in nature, it would benefit to have the anime/manga standards apply as well. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Support (also as a VG member) in theory, but I'm curious as to how this would function before I'm sold. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC))
It would function the same as before. Having it be a joint task force would just give it more exposure as it would be listed on the main pages of both projects instead of just one of them. WP:JAPAN has several joint task forces like this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have some links for the joint TFs? (Guyinblack25 talk 13:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
You can see all of them by viewing the task force list in the vertical navbox on the right side of the main WP:JAPAN page. All of the joint task forces are clearly marked. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It may require new sub-sections here and WP:VG, but that's minor.∞陣内Jinnai 05:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Weak support as a (rather inactive) task force member, because of how visual novels often relate to anime and manga. Hell, a lot of magazines cover both subjects too, but like MasatGuyinblack25, I am also wondering how this will work aside from just listing the task force under WP:ANIME as well. -- クラウド６６８ 23:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming it'll help when it comes to the adaptation sections, and in the use of infoboxes, but I can't really see any other direct benefit. Anyway, this seems like a good idea.--十八 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutral (As a VG member) It can't hurt, for sure, but I wonder how much good it can really do, as the other commenters above. In any case I'm not opposing. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
yeah, won't hurt. Though I can see why so many wouldn't be so sure on the benefit. But I don't see any reason why not. So I support.Lucia Black (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a more structured MOS for anime, plus the other stuff people have said.∞陣内Jinnai 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the overlap, how should the different MOS's be applied? Should it depend on the originating media? (Guyinblack25 talk 13:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
For those that already overlap (ie have an anime/manga adapation that's notable), they tend to use the structure setup of WP:MOS-AM with the added gameplay section. They follow both the WP:VG/GL and the WP:MOS-AM as they both come into play. None of them are FAs, but there are a number of GAs to go by. This would basically extend that concept to all of them.∞陣内Jinnai 15:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Ammedium: It would also use the B-class assemeent from WP:Anime, which I would say (having done B-class assement for both anime/manga articles and video game articles) is superior for determing the difference between C and B class which overall will help the articles improve in the long run.∞陣内Jinnai 16:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be support for the joint task force. Should we hash out the details? Like how the different MOS's would apply. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
I guess, but given common practice I'd say there shouldn't be too much to hash out.∞陣内Jinnai 16:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Very true, this should be a short discussion.
Basically, we have something like Air (visual novel), which is a game that was adapted into other media, and something like Little Busters!, which is a manga that was adapted into other media. The first seems fine to me, but Little Busters! seems like a different setup would be more appropriate since the game is derivative of the manga. My take is that the MOS of the originating media (video game/anima/manga) should apply. Otherwise, I think the article doesn't convey the information as well, i.e. out of order and with undue weight. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
Probably. The question is then if we go with that, using Little Busters! as the example, how we impliment the gameplay section required by WP:VG/GL#Organization, especially when you combine possible plot differnces. Gaemplay is substantial enough to be given its own subsection so unless the game is (almost) exactly the same plot as the original work, this could prove difficult as we also add in release and development info plus sequels and whatnot.

Right now the only FAs we have deal with anime/manga with spinoff games of lesser notability and thus they don't need as much coverage. What we are talking about here is cases where they notability may be equal to or greater for the spinoff media which is a visual novel, but where dividing the article into 2 is not the best thing. We need to figure out a way of how to structure that since it could become quite long while also noting that it shouldn't be overly long in cases where the spinoff visual novel(-esque) titles aren't as notable such as School Rumble.∞陣内Jinnai 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but a format similar to how H2O: Footprints in the Sand right now (except maybe moving the Visual novel section to under the Related media section) might work for such a scenario. While we talk about following the WP:VG/GL, how should we interpret its WP:VGBOX section when working on an article for a visual novel that has received adaptations? The current WP:VG guidelines state that only one cover art may be used in an article unless the second received significant commentary (and we've had images removed before for this), but this section was most likely written with only video games in mind, and cover arts of adaptations may potentially be able to visually portray the diversity of media forms the VN's adapted to.
Slightly off topic, but Little Busters! wasn't adapted from a manga, but rather it received a manga adaptation prior to the game's release, which actually happens quite often to VN. -- クラウド６６８ 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a general reply to the above. I don't think there should be any difference to how it is done now, simply because I can't think of a single example where a VN adaptation received more coverage than the work it's based on. For Little Busters!, the VN is the primary work, as Cloud668 said; it shouldn't be hard to read the first sentence of the lead before making snap judgements based on the infobox, Guyinblack25. Formatting of VN adaptations from manga and light novels have been done before, some to great success as in Tokyo Mew Mew, and that's no different then what we're doing now and what we've been doing for years. Kashimashi#Visual novel would also be another example. So it's doubtful that such an issue of the VN adaptation needing undue attention will ever arise, and even if it did, it seems more like a case-by-case basis to me, in lieu of WP:CREEP.--十八 05:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Juhachi- No, it isn't hard to read the first sentence of the article. Thank you for assuming and stating that I didn't.
Skimming through the article I gathered that the visual novel was the primary topic, but with a manga that came before it. And during that skim I missed the second sentence of manga section, which answers the question I had about what format the article should follow.
The Anime and Manga Project obviously has a good system already in place to handle visual novels. No point creeping further into foreign territory. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC))
That is probably something that should go into the guidelines (here as well); if the primary work is released later, such as the case of Little Busters!, that needs to be made clear in the first sentence otherwise the release dates color the readers perception when they compare it with the infobox and confuse the reader - the exact opposite of what we want to do.
As to Juhanchi's replay about VN adaptations, I'd be wary about stating that. Especially as VN hybrid titles become more mainstream in the West. It may be okay to kick the can down the road, but that's all we'd be doing.∞陣内Jinnai 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Using Little Busters! as the example, that would fly in direct opposition to what's already accepted as the first sentence of the lead, in that it must introduce what the topic is. Little Busters! is a visual novel first, and that's what has to be stated first. Adaptations, even those that came out before the game, are still only adaptations, and it can be explained when they came out in the sections about them, as in Little Busters!#Manga. I mean, using your suggestion, the lead's first sentence would turn out to be: "Little Busters! is a Japanese visual novel developed by Key released on July 27, 2007 playable on a Windows PC; a manga adaptation was first released before the visual novel in March 2006." It makes no sense because those are two very different topics you're introducing.
On your second point, I don't see why VN hybrid games becoming more mainstream has any bearing on what I said. It still wouldn't make any difference to how it's handled now. By that I mean, if the VN adaptation wasn't significant enough, then all of it's info could easily be contained within the main article. On the other hand, if it gained significant coverage, and the information was becoming an undue weight in the article, wouldn't it make sense just to split it off? Either way, nothing changes.--十八 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
On the first point, I guess it doesn't need to be in the first sentance. I admit that may have been a bit too forceful. However, it should be in the first paragraph per WP:MOSBEGIN. Considering the manga comes first in the infobox, which is also covered by WP:LEAD, that info should not be buried somewhere in the 3rd paragraph.
As to the second point, not necessarily. Assuming there is such a game that comes out and has some reception, especially English reception, one also has to consider several facts per WP:SS. First, how much difference between the two different media are there? If its incidental, that could cause issues for excessive plot redundancy and be merged back in because of WP:WAF concerns for minimizing plot detail, especially redundant info if 95% is the same thing; this occurs a lot with remakes that are repackaged into combo releases. Assuming that it passes that or no one considers it an issue, the amount of development/production and reception also play a part. Just passing the GNG is not a green light to make whatever spinout you want. In this case it could be seen as an invalid content fork as while the adaptation is notable, the amount of reception/development could easily be covered in the main article and serve the reader better by having the info in 1 place. FE: School Rumble has an anime adaptation. It is clearly a notable adaptation as shown by the significant amount of reception. However, we try to WP:AVOIDSPLITs and as shown the entire article can be handle both the anime and manga adaptation while mentioning the minor differences (4th pragraph in #Anime section) and the development/production and reception all found a place in existing sections. I'd say that a hypotherical game would have to apply similar standards; just having gameplay isn't enough.∞陣内Jinnai 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I still disagree on your first point. The lead is meant to reflect the general structure of the article in question, so as in the case of Little Busters!, the topic is introduced, followed by plot, gameplay, development, and then adaptations in the third paragraph. If you introduce the adaptations in the first paragraph in the lead, it wouldn't reflect the structure of the article, and would also clutter the info already in the first paragraph, which largely deals with the releases of three main games: Little Busters!, Ecstasy and Kud Wafter.
On the second point, I would agree that splitting should be done carefully, and I don't support unnecessary splits. I was mainly talking about situations where a split would make sense, and in all other situations the info would be contained in the main article, as I said.--十八 02:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
For the first part, I agree with Juhachi that the lead should maintain a general structure of the article, but I guess adding a ", after the serialization of a manga adaptation" to the back of the sentence of the first release date won't exactly hurt (Although it still feels like it comes out of nowhere a little).
For the second point, I don't really see how this is handled differently than we already do. If a VN adaptation based on an anime is made with the same general story or with significant commentary (and I see Angel Beats! or Guilty Crown possibly falling into this category in the future), then it can still be easily integrated into the already existing article as a Visual novel subsection that go into the aspects and differences of the game. I think the only case where an adaptation should be split off from the main article is when the story is so drastically different from the original that the main article itself cannot go into the details without breaking the flow, such as True Tears, as a "reversed case", I guess. -- クラウド６６８ 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
For the first point, outside the first paragraph and specifically the first sentence, there is no requirement that the format needs to follow the article structure, just mention everything in the article in a neutral manner. However as the includes the infobox and introductory text, the first thing in the infobox the reader sees Little Busters! is a manga; the first thing they read is that its a visual novel. That is bound to confuse any reader not already familiar with the title's history which is definatly not the purpose of the lead. Either we restructure the text to clarrify that why the manga is listed in the infobox first (ie why it came out before the VN, but the article is primarily about that) or we restructure the infobox to be in a non-chronological order. The important part is you must assume the reader coming here has never heard of Little Busters and will look at both the infobox and the text summary.
As to the second point, my point is mainly how to deal with gameplay changes. I guess we could take a cue from Popotan and School Rumble Popotan has a completely different story than the anime and has a seperate subsection devoted to that story and most of the notability of Popotan is related to the anime. On the other hand, School Rumble has very little info on the gameplay for its spinoff games and outside of a single Famitsu score, no evidence of any of the games having any signs of signfigiant notability. The bottom line being that insofar as apply WP:MOS-AM and WP:VG/GL, we apply gameplay mechanics as relevant based on the relevant weight as shown by independant secondary sources; if no sources comment on the game, little time should be spent on discussing it. If there are signifigant amounts of sources, we can have a seperate subsection. The same applies for changes in plot (altogh like School Rumble, even if more sources comment on an adapatation, if the plot is still basically the same, we only summarize the differences).∞陣内Jinnai 17:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
"...there is no requirement that the format needs to follow the article structure." That's news to me, because I've come across this when doing several GACs. Even if it's an unwritten rule, it makes sense to structure the lead the same as the body text, and from what I've seen, that's how leads are generally written. Like I said, it would clutter the first paragraph to mention adaptations there, because if you mention one adaptation, you'd have to mention all of them, even those that came after the game was released. I doubt infobox organization is going to change, as I've brought up the primary media always being first in the infobox before, only to have that go no where. Regardless, the first sentence would stay "...is a visual novel...", even if the manga adaptation was mentioned in the first paragraph, and the infobox wouldn't change, so either way, some readers might get confused upon their initial inspection, going by what you said. Besides, WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead may state the infobox is a part of the lead, but it doesn't say it has to conform exactly with what's in the lead itself. For 95% of instances, this is probably true, but in odd cases like Little Busters! it's slightly different, and it should be taken into account that this is a special case where an adaptation was released before the primary media.--十八 21:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:LEAD again. It does not say that anywhere you need to conform to article structure and anyone demanding it to pass a GAN of FAC has no basis on which to deny that. As for the rest, you are forgetting a concept more important than WP:LEAD: WP:IAR. We are not here to deliberatly confuse the uninformed reader. That is not our mission. That is not what an encyclopedia is designed for. We are here to inform a reader and as such at times you have make exceptions to how things are normally done. Little Busters! is an excellent example of this because it has already confused people about why the article talks about the VN when the manga is listed first because that info is not clearly visable to the reader; its buried deep within the article. That should be one of the first things the reader grasps. That principle is what is behind policies like TITLE and guidelines like LEAD. So it adds a little bit of clutter to the first paragraph. That is far less important than the other result: confusing the reader and making them question the premise of the article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not a little bit of clutter, it's about readability. Suddenly bringing up the manga adaptation in the first paragraph would be jarring to the reader who just read that the topic is a visual novel. This is the whole concept to how articles are structured to keep things organized. You keep the VN stuff in one place, and the adaptations in another.
Going by what you suggest, there'd be two options. The first is you mention the first manga adaptation in the first paragraph, while keeping the other 9 for paragraph 3. The other option is you'd mention all 10 adaptations in the first paragraph, which would add a lot of clutter to an already lengthy first paragraph, with or without the mention of one of the manga. I tend to hate option one more since you'd be splitting the adaptation info into two places in the lead, but on the other hand talking about all the adaptations so early in the lead, I feel, adds undue weight to what are merely adaptations. And all of this manga stuff would presumably come even before the mention of Ecstasy's release? I can't accept that the manga adaptations are more important than the sequel game.--十八 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You are looking at this through a colored prism in that you are:
  1. Familiar with Little Busters! and its publication history
  1. Assuming an uninformed reader will never ever look at the infobox until after they've read the prose.
  1. That there is only 1 specific way a lead should be.

To the first point, that is not who we are writing the articles, especially the leads for. We are writing them assuming the reader is uninformed. When you take in the 2nd point, that would be absurd to think no one would ever look at the infobox until after they've read the lead's prose. You can't assume they'll read the prose first. They might, like myself, read the infobox first and then go over the prose. That means there will be a disconnect and unnessasary level of confusion to the reader because most release adaptations come out after the thing they are adapted from: that's what common sense tells people because for an adaptation to (normally) exist, there must be something out there to be adapted from. Given that one cannot assume the reader is stepped in the knowledge of Little Busters! publication history. the first infobox entry jars with the opening statement that Little Busters is a VN, not a manga. Without clarifying that early on, we risk further confusing the reader for the remainder of the article. We cannot assume they'll read through the prose and the info about the manga being based on an unreleased visual novel. We need to make things clear immediately so the reader understands why his common sense in seeing the manga first in the infobox, but reading the prose and seeing the article is about the visual novel is wrong. That means we need to be upfront about the adaptations. This isn't some hypothetical situation either; its already happened as earlier comments by others in this discussion have shown.

Now as to what method is best, I am not going to say whether listing all the manga adaptations at once, listing just the first and then later the other 9 or listing a brief mention such as "Little Busters! is a visual novel with a prior manga adaptation released." or something like that and then having the 3rd paragraph talk about the manga adaptations. It's not UNDUE to put a mention up in the lead as the manga is the first official release from the franchise.∞陣内Jinnai 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Without clarifying that early on, we risk further confusing the reader for the remainder of the article." How is the third paragraph in the lead not early enough? Does moving it 2 paragraphs up really qualify as so much earlier than how it is now? I really would like to get others' input on this, because I can't see how it would largely improve readability; indeed, I think it would be detrimental as it would be jarring to introduce a manga right after talking about a VN, as I said. I might agree if the manga weren't even mentioned in the lead, but they're right there in the first sentence of paragraph 3.--十八 05:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
"Basically, we have ... something like Little Busters!, which is a manga that was adapted into other media." - Guyinblack
That right there tells me that its too far down. That is an assumption made by someone who is not stepped in the history of Little Busters!. I also made a similar assumption. Both of us are familiar with general video game culture and I am also (not sure about Guyinblack) with anime/manga culture. Yet even we made this mistake. Someone unfamiliar with visual novels or anime/manga culture is more likely to make that mistake. That tells me that yes, being in the 3rd paragraph in the lead is too far down.∞陣内Jinnai 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the serialization of the manga before the game's release is probably confusing at first glance, but it is also the responsibility of the reader to read further to learn more about the work in question. That said, I think the lead can also include the information that a manga adaptation came before the game's release (since it doesn't already), but simply adding " with a prior manga adaptation released." right after introducing Little Busters! as a visual novel sounds too informatively intrusive and like a blatant addition. If the addition has to be made, I'd still say it should be appended to after the release date of the visual novel, by saying the date comes after the serialization of the manga adaptation.
Also, how did a discussion of adopting the task force turn into a discussion of how Little Busters!' lead should be written? -- クラウド６６８ 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no qualms with listing it in the 2nd sentence. My issue comes with pushing it down beyond the first paragraph.
As to why it's focused on Little Busters!, its because we were trying to see how we'd deal with a visual novel type adaptation that came after an anime and how the two guidelines MOS-AM and VG/GL should be applied and then issues that Little Busters! wasn't an adaptation and from there it became well if its not clearly stated, it can confuse the reader as and that normal practices don't need to be followed because this isn't a normal way an adaptation is released, ie prior to the original work vs that the structure of Lead is fine. It's just imo another reason why this would be better to have it under both wikiprojects. I already answered how we might deal with gameplay for true adaptations, which was the only one of two real concern I saw with a true conflict between the 2 guidelines. The other being that I think the visual novels should use the animmanga game infoboxes even if there is no anime/manga adaptation release at the time because pretty much every notable visual novel has had one or both.∞陣内Jinnai 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break

Okay, it seems there is a consensus for this. I can go ahead and edit the respective pages. The issue with Little Busters! imo is an application of WP:IAR and I might bring this up at WP:LEAD to see if they can clarrify things. As for the specifics on how to word dealing with MOS-AM and VG/GL, that should be discussed at the TF.∞陣内Jinnai 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this has larger implications, I'm listing here. I brought up the issue that Little Busters! caused.∞陣内Jinnai 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Screwy importance scale

So I happened to be over at the Naruto article and noticed that it's tagged as being merely mid importance. Now this just seemed weird to me, as Naruto has been an easy contender for the most popular anime/manga franchise in the world for the past couple of years. I mean, at its peak, the series was a full tenth of manga sold in America (not to mention the most visited Wikipedia article in our project). Perhaps we are against tagging any series as top class, but surely Naruto is of high importance.

So then I checked out our importance scale examples, and was shocked to find that Sailor Moon of all series was given as an example of mid importance. We're talking about what is probably the second most important series (after Dragon Ball Z) in relation to why anime even became an international post-90s phenomenon in the first place! And that, somehow, makes it literally the definitive mid importance anime series article.

I'm not really a fan of either series, so this isn't some personal fanquest I'm on, and I know how counterproductive it is to focus on petty importance debates instead of article content, but I'm just saying that our current sense of importance to the project seems to be really off. At least in terms of series.--Remurmur (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This could easily been resolved in the Sailor Moon talkpage. I support it being High importance, does anyone else like to oppose or support?Lucia Black (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone actually pay attention to those?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
recently it has in other projects....anyways. can you contribute?Lucia Black (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you are intentionally disrupting the discussion. Do it again and ill report it.Lucia Black (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't start flinging threats of "reporting" around. Anyone has the right to make a comment in any discussion on Wikipedia, so please don't attack Ryulong (or anyone else, for that matter) for doing so. His comments were not in the least disruptive here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it to the Sailor Moon talkpage because this is more about redefining our criteria of importance. Here's a sample framework that I use in my head.
  • High = High-profile series. Known to most all otaku. People uninterested in anime/manga are aware of it. If unlicensed, must be absolutely huge in Japan. (ex. Cowboy Bebop, Doraemon)
  • Medium = Known to some otaku, but obscure to the layman. The average licensed series. Also for unlicensed series that are popular in Japan. (ex. Now and Then, Here and There, Yatterman)
  • Low = Obscure here and obscure there. Unlicensed or low distribution series only hardcore otaku know about. (ex. 888 (manga), Potemayo)

Something like that, but with better phrasing. --Remurmur (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The series qualifies for high, what do you think?Lucia Black (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No, no, no, no. The importance scale is not for you to subjectively decide what anime is more important than others. It is a scale for the importance of the article to the subject as a whole. WP:COMICS's system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment#Importance scale shows that this qualifier is the importance of the article itself within the topic area, and this project already has its own criteria.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I know but its really wide. The series seems to be high importance though.Lucia Black (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say that Sailor Moon and Naruto both should be at least high importance given their broad impact on things. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Try to see this in the right perspective. Manga and anime have been around a long time. Will the average manga-reading boy in fifty years know who Naruto is? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain many of them will be able to name their favorite Super Saiyan. The assessment page says for a series to be of high importance, it has to have or have had a "Lasting impact decades after it was initially released". That's a reasonable criterion, if you ask me, and neither Naruto nor Sailor Moon satisfy it. At least not yet. Goodraise 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Remurmur's scale seems pretty sane to me. I agree with Breadninja here - any rating scale which doesn't put Sailor Moon or Naruto toward the top is a rating scale which is completely broken. And Goodraise, are you serious? Neither Naruto nor Sailor Moon has had a lasting impact? Whatever.

(Of course, I have no respect for the rating scales or GA/FA in the first place, like Ryulong, so don't expect any help from me.) --Gwern (contribs) 17:44 29 November 2011 (GMT)

Neither Naruto nor Sailor Moon is twenty years old and therefore can't have had a "Lasting impact decades after it was initially released". That much I can say without knowing anything else about either subject (which I don't presume to do). I'm curious though. If I may ask, what caused your displeasure with the various rating scales? Goodraise 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Sailor Moon was first serialized in 1991 near the end of the year (I forget the exact issue of Nakayoshi, but I think it was December). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't it the February 1992 issue? Well, even if it was, it's not as if a magazine couldn't have been released several month before the date on its cover. In any case, my position remains the same: Requiring a series to be at the very least two decades old in addition to the less objective criterion of "lasting impact" is not only reasonable, but also practical, as it keeps fanboys and fangirls from pushing their newest pet series into the spotlight in yet another way. Goodraise 09:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt time span is enough, plus given its pretty close to 20 years, the series has been revived internationally and has influenced its predecessor (codename: sailor v) to release alongside it for the first time. I would say the series has high importance.Lucia Black (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Both Sailor Moon and Naruto span 3 decades (the 90s, the 00s, and now the 10s), and show zero sign of sputtering out. To insist that their impact is not proven is sheer argumentativeness; I might understand if you thought Naruto was not going to have a lasting impact because while commercially a goldmine and very popular among the kids (go to any convention and look around) it's not clear that it will have any real literary impact outside the shonen genre, but Sailor Moon? Which was the most popular anime even overseas, on par with Pokemon, a monumental impact on all following shoujo or mahou shojou works, spawn of novel events like the SOS petitions, covered in hundreds of books and thousands of articles? (I have sometimes wished I was a Sailor Moon editor rather than an Evangelion editor - because then there would be endless sources for me to use.)
As for ratings, it's the usual expertise argument. The ratings, as conducted, value detailed discussion of trivia like release dates and movie lengths - the information which is the least important thing to know about a series or other artistic work. But of course, the mindless dates and numbers are the easiest thing for the ignorant to look at and check. (Raters are like the proverbial drunkard looking under the lamp-post.) --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 29 November 2011 (GMT)
May I suggest you re-read my previous comments? I think I made myself clear enough and I'm just not quite argumentative enough to rephrase it a second time. Thanks for answering my question though. I can understand now why you're holding that opinion, albeit one I don't share. Goodraise 23:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Importance isn't really used in the project in any meaningful way - we don't collaborate on high or top importance projects. The importance scale for companies is also a bit skewiff - we go from top importance, which is defined as highly influential companies, ie. the major Japanese publishers and production companies. High and mid importance are defined as licensors, leaving out any other Japanese companies from high or mid importance. Where could June (manga magazine) go, if not for this 'high and mid' focus on licensors? --Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bwah.. As far i can tell, changing importance won't magically improve the article quality, credibility and PoV balance. In fact, if you need a "feel good" and a "small ego boost", you can bump to high importance any subject you are interested in but it won't advance "the cause" of those subjects by any millimeter.
Besides i really think that our importance rating is biased toward :

  • Recentism : Sure there is not any noteworthy works from the 50-70 save for Tezuka's ones......
  • Shonen then shojo then rest of the manga world...
  • Anything that sells and/or has dedicated fandom

Given those flaws any discussion on article importance can be quickly reduced into another PoV pushing contest. For Naruto, i would give a bump to high only to the fact it symbolizes the most the Manga as a globalised cultural product but that my very personal POV. For Sailor Moon, i'm moderately favorable being the "successful" cross-over between sentai & Magic girl genres which spanned in turn other series based on the same mold or so. Again it's pure pov pushing from my part. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance is exactly as it sounds in terms of what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia. Thus importance should represent encyclopedic importance, not what's popular or well known, but what series have contributed to or influenced the culture, industry, etc that can be verified. Thus Sailor Moon would be up there because it has been documented. So would DBZ and Pokemon. Naruto, less so.∞陣内Jinnai 23:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Original image issues at Sailor Senshi

Lucia Black contends that the diagram which can be seen at Sailor_Senshi#Uniform_and_power-ups is original research. I contend that it is an original image which covers the information more succinctly than prose could. I have asked her repeatedly what about the image is original research, and she has not replied to this. Additional eyes and opinions would be helpful. --Malkinann (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check the prose, but its an OI if the info is all verifiable from sources cited there and doesn't introduce any new concepts. FE: I don't know if its verfieid elsewhere, but the unique hairstyle would be something that would need to be verified (yes it may be obvious when you watch the series, but that's OR). Also the bottom right image has External with a question mark. That is a red-flag to it being OR. Either it is or isn't. If it's a disputed term, best to leave it out.∞陣内Jinnai 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The hairstyles are noted in several secondary sources about the series. Lucia Black has not contended the use of "Eternal", but the discussion seems to now be more focussing on the image being 'fancruft' and 'excessive' and the issues of original research are not being explained clearly. --Malkinann (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would be more comfortable if several sources were included for the section. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources being images though, seems the use of the sources is stretched. That and there are things in-univere such as the type of material and the secondary and third stage comparison that doesn't really provide any help within the image. I'm also looking for the notation on hair and did not find but I'm reading it slightly faster so ill check once more. So yes, excessive fancruft and detail for an image along with OR.Lucia Black (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the note on the hairstyles is in Mary Grigsby's articles. Citing primary sources does not necessarily make an article or an image in-universe. --Malkinann (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The image is certainly not fancruft, and I ask that you please not use that extremely bad-faith-assuming phrase. If the information in the image was garnered from reliable sources, we just need to include those sources with the image and all will be fine. The allegedly :in-universe" information you refer to is mostly not actually in-universe as it mostly explains the information in terminology understandable by most people, even those not familiar with the series. Using images as sources is not bad, nor does it make the free image original research. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Its more on how they are used is what makes them in-universe. and the sources seem pretty stretched. Unfortunately I don't own a book of where its cited so I'm just going to have to take its word. And I'm still saying its fancruft and its not bad faith. It has intricate detail and the in-universe was based on the material the uniform is made. And images for sources depends on how its used. If text is based on sources on images and a diagram based on that source than it would seem too intricate and detailed to show each aspect of that uniform when we can use that image instead.Lucia Black (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, should we get that intricate in one image? Or should we simply mention these things. That's what I think makes this in-universe. I suppose more accurately it would be very guide-like.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand anything in your last post - "Its more on how they are used... " etc. WP:FANCRUFT explains how the use of "fancruft" can be pejorative. Where are the original research issues in the diagram? --Malkinann (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
depends on how the sources are used that make articles in-universe. Many popular series show a map of the world. We can use it to illustrate the world or we can go in deep detail showing which is which's character hometown or show a timeline of the world ma to what was subject to change. Right now illustrations are being used to describe from what that source has. So a diagram to illustrate that image? I just mentioned the OR a few times already in the last discussion. The "harder protective material". The image is too intricate...it would be easier to color the areas that all sailor senshi characters have and mention within the caption that the color areas illustrate where are the base and maybe another color to show what is subject to change per senshi. Less detail and allows more text to do the describing.Lucia Black (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Fancruft is also a matter of degree of importance placed in Wikipedia vs. the degree secondary RSes (independent or not) place on it. If those sources talk a lot about it, going into detail and the how and why or commenting on it in depth, noting it in detail is not fancruft.∞陣内Jinnai 16:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Mainly one source and it would depend on prose but in this case the image attempts to show every single aspect and looking for sources just to keep the image.Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The harder protective material can be clearly seen in the live-action costumes of the PGSM and Sailor Moon musicals Senshi, and is not OR. The image was created with reference to sources. I am at a disadvantage because I am not Masamage, nor do I know off the top of my head precisely which sources she used. If you got in contact with her, she may be able to help you. The majority of it is certainly citable to primary sources, such as the image collection. The girliness and frilliness of the costumes ("offensively girly", if I may make the pun) is discussed in the literature as being an example of sexualised female heroines (as opposed to sexless heroines like Nausicaa or the Power Rangers), and being symbolic of growing up, separating the girl from the woman warrior. Is there any other original research in the diagram? --Malkinann (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take things at a much more nuetral perspective. I don't see how the frilliness or girliness of the uniform justifying the diagram in any way. Overall its far too intricate and the sources are based off of opinion and images, they're too stretched, a diagram like that would exist if the creator made one herself and even then it wouldn't be used as a literal guide more as an illustration to the development. The image itself can most definitely be undue weight.Lucia Black (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at masamage's page but considering health issues mentioned at her talkpage and hasn't made a contribution over 2 years, I doubt we will get a responce soon. So we have to make due ourselves.Lucia Black (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else want to say anything? the consensus is rather topsy turvy, neither side is strong but if it slowly stops being discussed then it might be not worth defending.Lucia Black (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the frilliness and girliness of the uniform (and the progressively more frilly nature of the uniform) has been discussed by reliable sources as being important to Sailor Moon's success does assist in justifying the discussion of the uniform and the diagram. The diagram assists in the discussion of the uniform by being a free diagram, thus cutting down on fair use images in the article, and it assists people who learn by pictures rather than words. I don't regard the diagram as putting too much weight on the uniform's design, and I think that the original research problems in the image are very small - thus far, I've only not been able to find a source for ("Eternal?"). Are there any other original research problems in the diagram? --Malkinann (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to say here. Both sides make some good points. I'd go ask at WP:RS/N or request an RfC.∞陣内Jinnai 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, the usage of the image I trying to be justified per use of sources, but the necesity and useflness is highly subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is why i suggest further discussion through a noticeboard or RfC. It doesn't appear consensus will be reached here. Malkinann has some valid points about it, but how essential it is, is subjective and the threshold is a lot lower for CC or public domain images as opposed to fair use iamges.∞陣内Jinnai 01:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Malkinann pointed out something not rlevant to the image. A diagram of the notable aspects of naruto's out by opinion and then trying to justify it per something not really related per the diagram.Lucia Black (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having more than one big discussion on Sailor Moon related issues at a time is a good idea - it stretches everyone too thin. The claims of original research were either inactionably vague, refuted, or are solvable (by removing ("Eternal?") from the image). The claims of excessive detail are similarly inactionably vague and ignore the reliable sources discussing the uniform's appeal as key to the success of Sailor Moon, and judge a free image by the same standards as the NFCC. I have added some sourcing to the image description page, and to the article, I hope that will help to clarify matters. --Malkinann (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be vague just the sourcing is incredibly stretched. The diagram is based on subjectivity of the sources. Based on ideas from someone else and how one sees the images. The image is justified by 1 specific source from what isee and you don't seem to understand "how stretched" the source such as images is being used. Regardless if its noted appealing, that doesn't justify a diagram. Especially snce we have a significant ammount of images with the characters wering there sailor senshi outfit.
Its rather fancruft. Superfluous. Unnecessary and trivial.Lucia Black (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


Were you trying not to be vague when I asked you several times on the talk page where the original research was in the image, and you responded with complaints about the intricacy of the diagram? The diagram is verifiable, based on primary sources, and secondary sources, and it is justified by the reliable sources discussing how the style of the uniform was important to the success of Sailor Moon. As the image is a free image, the higher standards we apply to non-free content with minimal usage do not apply - the MOS:IMAGE applies instead. Your assessment of the image as "fancruft. Superfluous. Unnecessary and trivial." is uncivil and unhelpful, and ignores the reliable sources which discuss the topic. --Malkinann (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No because I answered repeatedly. And will not repeat myself again. And I consider using images as original research to justify such a diagram. I really could care less if it was free or non free, technically the wikipedia article can run completely on free media if it wanted to however the line is drawn when the image imposes more than complimentary. The justification of the image is merely because it "can" stay there. Free media shouldn't always get a free pass because its free media and everything that we see on the diagram we already see on the costumes. I stick with my statement of the diagram being fancruft because it seems to help those specifically interested as the other images of the characters in their uniform would be enough. Superfluous because the sources to verify are based on primary, and that is making them stretched, anyone would be able to make a diagram of any outfit of any character as long as someone noted something specific about their out fit and used images. Its superfuous, the diagram is based on two main sources, one is secondary and the other being primary. Unnecessary because we already have an image of their outfits and trivial because its meant to guide the reader, not compliment the prose already given. The image attempts to capitalize the aspects. Putting high importance of those aspects for being noted once. It is most definitely something that can be coonsidered undue weight. Hypothetically, if a reception has mainly positive reviews and only one was negative. An image of the reviewer giving the negative review be added? It would have to prove itself a lot more relevant such as response to the critique and some form of history on it which won't be likely. Saying the diagram is verifiable is like verifying it throug a sailor senshi uniform image from the anime. Its just superfluous.Lucia Black (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If its about the subjectivity of the image based on the sources, ask that at original research noticeboard as it includes original images in its scope.∞陣内Jinnai 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I view the issues of original research and "excessive detail" in the image to be two separate issues, and was therefore confused when you responded to my questions about original research with complaints about the "excessive detail". Using images as sources in a diagram is not original research if there is no interpretation, as there is in this image. It is descriptive, not an analysis of the uniform. To apply the same rules for free content as for non-free content is not acceptable - the utility of the image should be considered. The image helps to explain the uniform in a different way to the text, helping those who learn by interpreting images rather than text, and complements the text in the section. --Malkinann (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. OI specifically allows for this. As I said the only issue I have is with the Eternal descriptor as its not explained why there is a question mark (if there is a reason, put an asterisk next to it and in the image itself make a small commentary about it (preferably the same or very similar text used in the prose) or remove it altogether. Since its a CC image, it is allowable for us to make these changes.∞陣内Jinnai 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I treat Fc the same as Nfc because a lot of unnecessary images tends be more of an additional unnecessary piece that is defended mainly by being an FC. And that's why I treat it the same as NFC but I don't think of it completely like NFC. Just the areas where the policy can be used for both. Regardless, I stand by everything I said. Because I don't feel like repeating myself on why its fancruft, superfluous, unnecessary and trivial. We already have several images of sailor senshi uniform, a diagram only capitalizes the sourcs being used which can give. Undue weight. It feelss like everything I said was ignored. Images being used to justify an original image shows how stretched this really is. You also ignor the fact that we have several images of their outfits. A diagram isn't necesary to illustraate what we already have, and no I don't think its just descriptive because its based on nalysis of the editor on images and putting more stress over what 1 person noted.Lucia Black (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the "Eternal?" text could be removed to improve the image. The diagram with captions assists in the understanding of the uniform, and the use of captions helps us reduce the number of images needed to discuss the variety in the uniforms. --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no caption in the image because it was made to be guide.Lucia Black (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There are captions in the image - all the notes besides the picture which help people to understand the picture and the changes it goes through, such as the choker stone changing into a heart. --Malkinann (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Those are notes within the imag captions would decribe the entire image in one go. Which if you do call them captions then further proves how we can use the images we have now then this unnecesary superfluous diagram.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything?Lucia Black (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorcerous Stabber Orphen

This article needs serious work. While it's true that it's a light novel series, it's hard to find any English sources about the light novels because they've never been translated. Reliable sources on the manga and anime are even more scarce, and I'm pretty certain there are no reviews of either from notable third party sources, save maybe a few editors for Anime News Network. Help salvaging this thing would be greatly appreciated. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked them, but there are plenty of results coming up in the CSE. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging List of Tenjho Tenge characters

I would like to get some help merging characters (and if you want improving the article). The series has a lot of individual articles that fail GNG. However, some of main ones may.∞陣内Jinnai 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You Are Umasou

Does anybody know where some sources about You Are Umasou are? ja:おまえうまそうだな and an article in Korean exist, but aside from an ANN entry, I'm not sure if there was ever an English release WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lots of titles have ANN entries that never have an English release. While I have heard the name before, I knew nothing about it until now and AFAIK there is no legitimate English translation of the movie, the series or the book. ANN News articles detail box office takings etc. I'm not sure if it acceptable since it is an SPS (it is from a published palaeontologist and hosted by the Smithsonian Magazine) but this is interesting: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/12/the-dinosaur-family-foodchain/ Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a not a lot available in English, it seems; more fan than RS discussion: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22You+Are+Umasou%22 --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 17 December 2011 (GMT)
If that blog is published under the editorial review of the Smithsonian, it is a reliable source - This is the Smithsonian website, not an open blog provider, so it should be okay WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Folks, I started a little stub. Hopefully it will flower into a nice article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku

According to a citation in Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku, Kōsei Kawase, the producer of Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku states in the comments at http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm9247437 that they "have no money so [they're] borrowing server space" Which comment says that? Where is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request re: Template:Anime and manga

Main page: Template talk:Anime and manga § Edit request on 19 December 2011

A request has been made to expand the genres list on the above mentioned template from (Harem • Magical girl • Mecha • Yaoi • Yuri) to include many more genres. Further comment is requested in this regard. -- G.A.Stalk 15:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought we agreed Harem wasn't an actual documented genre and thus its use is OR.∞陣内Jinnai 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Summaries length in List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes

There is currently a discussion about the length in summaries from List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes#Episode 11. In order to make the length more consistent, user Ryulong rewrote every summary giving each one about 300 words. Is that length acceptable? I'm having doubts about it, so I think a third opinion would be necessary. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no upper limit to these things, Tintor. Guidelines are just suggestions. They are not rules that should never be broken.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is not here. It's in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes#Episode 11.Tintor2 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOSTV#Episode Listing gives the basis. I'm not certain how complex the story is (I played the game, but not seen the anime), but 300 is close to their upper suggested limit.∞陣内Jinnai 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the real question should be is there excessive info that can be removed or is what is included necessary to have a proper understanding for the episode. If the summaries contain minor details that do not advance to overall plot than trimming is a good idea but if major aspects of the plot would need to be omitted in order to reduce the summary's length then the summaries should remain at the current length. I have no experience with either the game or show so I'll leave that question to someone else.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That is true, but FLs are suppose to have all the episode summaries of similar length unless there is something that makes a particular epsiode fairly easy to summarize or rather hard. FE, summary episodes are usually shorter.∞陣内Jinnai 22:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Jinnai, would you mind commenting on the article talk page? Right now Tintor2 is arguing over the fact that I mention something Adachi does in episode 3 (Chie gets her Persona) rather than his major role in episode 9 (before Rise gets thrown in the TV) and he does not seem to understand why I have chosen to introduce him (and some other characters) earlier.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞陣内Jinnai 00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this but...

Why are there terminology sections in some articles? I thought that the Wikipedia articles were supposed to be from a real-life perspective (I think). Note that I am not asking for their removal, nor am I suggesting that these are inappropriate for Wikipedia; in fact, important terminology may be incorporated into the article's text, but wouldn't the terminology sections be considered fancruft (unless sourced), and shouldn't they just be in the subject's wiki or something? Again, I am not asking for their removal, I was just wondering why they exist. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Because not all articles have been worked on or taken care off by experienced editors. I usually remove terminology sections outright if I'm going to work on an article, and leave them be if I'm just passing by. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we put it in the MOS to not allow terminology and to instead expand the setting section?Lucia Black (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Take the case of Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica, two fairly popular shows, but they both have terminology sections. Wouldn't it make better sense to have those terminology in their respective wikis? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not the place for indiscriminate information or fancruft. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Er, no, it doesn't make sense - because we do not pervasively link those other wikis, readers would not click-through even if we did, and many editors get pissy if we so much as link them in the External Links section! Saying 'another page somewhere on the Internet discusses the terminology so we don't have to' is unhelpful because in theory, pretty much everything on Wikipedia is discussed somewhere else on the Internet or in libraries... --Gwern (contribs) 15:27 24 December 2011 (GMT)

Terminology sections are common on the Japanese version. And there are absolutely no rules or guidelines forbidding their usage on articles, so long as they can be reliably sourced. Although it might be better if we wrote the sections in prose rather than as lists. WP:NOTDIC concerns articles that are just entries on a word and defining it. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not cover terminology sections as far as I can see from its reading. And WP:FANCRUFT is not applicable because it is not a policy or guideline; it is just an open essay discussing issues concerning writing about fiction. So, terminology sections are not forbidden, and probably should not be forbidden anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting WP:INUNIVERSE and potentially be undue weight.Lucia Black (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's undue weight to give some terms that will be used on the article and related articles. And "INUNIVERSE" only applies to when there is no non-fictional content on articles on fiction.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking for their removal, there are some information that can only be placed in a terminology section. My main concern is that most of them are unsourced, not well-written and are written from an in-universe perspective. If all these problems can be adressed, then there is no need to remove them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
How would terminology sections not be written in in-universe? I think summarizing the content into the setting sections would make things simpler and not give undue weight or in-universe.Lucia Black (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This would be simpler, except neither of those guidelines/policies you cite are applicable to this issue as far as I can tell. And you've been wrong about applying policy before.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What is with wikipedia lately? Must every user resort to uncivility? I believe in-universe is plenty applicable and undue weight aswell. Just saying its not doesnt give much of a merrit and neither does discrediting me. Can you elaborate at least? Also indicriminate list i feel is also applicable...just because theres no specific rule against terminology sections does not mean the general idea doesnt apply.Lucia Black (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying that your assumptions of the application of policies and guidelines have been incorrect in the past is not incivil.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because there is no specific rule for terminology doesn't mean the general idea of including relevant stuff doesn't apply. --Gwern (contribs) 15:27 24 December 2011 (GMT)
Well, I was just asking if terminology sections should be included... Well, they would have been fine if they were sourced and written from a real-world perspective, but the latter would be quite difficult due to the nature of the content; it will almost always be inheritably in-universe. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wp:indiscriminate #1 says it all.Lucia Black (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It says it all if you have already assumed your conclusion that terminology is indiscriminate, and ignored the fact that in every field of human thought, terminology is necessary and useful; anime is not special in this regard. --Gwern (contribs) 16:14 24 December 2011 (GMT)
It is...dont make out the terminology sections into something theyre not. They make articles more focused on in-universe information. Terminology is a list of fictional terms and concepts. They make articles in-universe.Lucia Black (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
And here we have an excellent demonstration of the vapidity of the 'in-universe'/'out of universe' distinction. Terminology is in-universe, who knew? --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 24 December 2011 (GMT)
No, the terminology is not the in-universe part, it's the way they are written. Fix them, and add sources, and you'll be fine. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Cut the sarcasm, its uncivil. Terminology puts more focus on in-universe aspects rather than briefly explaining them in what easily could fit in the setting. Adding sources wont make them any less 8nxuniverse. In general it will always be a list of fictional terms and concepts only with references and in which they are mainly cited through first party sources. Heres what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says:
  • 1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.
I believe that terminology sections dont follow this and wont change if they are sourced, only if their relevance is proven.Lucia Black (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
And how is explaining terminology like 'Jedi' not part of a concise summary?
You don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again: you are assuming your conclusion. Find better arguments. --Gwern (contribs) 17:01 24 December 2011 (GMT)
Jedi is worthy of an article on its own, so it's not exactly a good example. IMO, I think instead of having a separated section, incorporating the terms into the summery -- or perhaps a section about the 'setting' -- should be a perfectly fine compromise between a layered off section like that and not including them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Im for keeping the Terminology sections in the articles as it helps the reader better understand the plot and does not add to confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If that is your rationale, wouldn't the incorporation of said content into another section like settings have the same purpose. Terminology sections can (and in some cases, should) be kept, but only if they were an integral part of the work and the non-inclusion would greatly affect the article in some way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Terminology sections are rarely used. The ones i know of are Pandora Hearts and Eureka Seven. We dont have to give a full detail outline of the fictional setting but explain the basic idea of the plot and setting. Terminology sections just do expansion. Confusion may occur depending on how detailed plots get. They put extra focus on the in-universe elements. However whats more common is splitting the fictional world/universe/setting as a notable topic.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Lucia, the terminology sections have a use. They do not violate INUNIVERSE or INDISCRIMINATE or any other policy and guideline you are looking for to attempt to have something on your side. By providing an easy to locate and easy to read section of terms that are specific and not easily discerned from reading the article without them, we are providing a service to the reader. How else can you describe the difference between a genin and chunin, what the technology of Japan in 2030, or elements not touched upon in detail in the animated series but in other materials?
These are not indiscriminate lists of information, because it is information that is quite specific in that it refers to terms found within a published work. It does not make the article too "in-universe", as you keep accusing, as it is a single section (or offshoot article) to elaborate upon the published work, and there would be no other way to explain these terms should they come up in prose. It is not clear what a Skyfish is in Eureka Seven without defining it. It is not clear what a Torch is in Shakugan no Shana without explaining it. It would not be clear what cyberbrain sclerosis is in Ghost in the Shell without having somewhere to explain it. There would be no way to explain the differences between the various types of Hollows or how one Hollow becomes another, which is something important in the fictional work. And it is not "undue weight" because that is part of our neutral point of view policy, which has no bearing on this content. WP:UNDUE is meant to make sure that both sies of an argument are equally represented.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The sections themselves do not violate INUNIVERSE, but their writing does. That is my concern. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's no way you can fix that. Because there is absolutely no way to define a piece of fiction's jargon without referring to the fiction itself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA says it all.∞陣内Jinnai 05:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
You mean

In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.

?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
It depends on how narrow that list is. Making it "every term in the series" could be seen as "unselective".∞陣内Jinnai 05:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Also note that for many of our articles, especially those under the WP:VN banner, WP:GAMECRUFT applies which is a lot heavier-handed than WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:WAF in restricting plot related content, especially those lists (#6). I think however, all of this could be summed up with WP:DUE. Noting terms that the article uses and/or that may be essential to the article's reader in understanding the work and that can be verified without resorting to synthesis or original research. If a term is rarely used or not essential, then by listing it you are giving it the same weight as terms that could be considered more important thus dilluting the argument of being selective.∞陣内Jinnai 06:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong I find your argument lacking, its not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP.INUNIVERSE. because it is relevant? There is no terminology section for Ghost in the shell however there is an article on the world which could be challenged to be deleted. And if it does get deleted then the main article will still be understandable. The terminology puts an extra focus on the in universe terms and concepts than the story, setting, and character sections. The problem isnt explaining them but putting them in onto their own section.Lucia Black (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are articles such as World of Ghost in the Shell or World of Naruto, as you find them, deletable? They're not indiscriminate collections of information, because they are articles specifically on different aspects of Ghost in the Shell or Naruto that would otherwise be out of place on a central article, and INUNIVERSE only means to avoid referring to things as if they are real events, and neither article violates that as far as I can tell.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I didnt mention world of naruto but it also fits in the same situation World of Ghost in the shell. Their relevance and importance has not been proven such as reception, impact or legacy. Terminology sections do what INUNIVERSE applies. There is no problem merging and summarizing the information to setting, plot, and even character setting. That and the importance in plot has put more of a focused. The importance of these terms have been put in a much higher light than what they should be.Lucia Black (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
And you are in the minority on this, again. World of Ghost in the Shell is full of various non-fictional information and for the most part appears to be a well written article that defines everything as being something in the fictional setting it describes. I can't say the same for World of Naruto because I have not taken an indepth look at it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because you disagree does not make me the minority. And you ignored the point completely.Lucia Black (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
No. It's because multiple people disagree with you. And these articles have been split off per WP:Splitting, and the articles contain enough references and real world information to allow for their separation and their own notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There are some that agree with the terminology sections being an issue so you cant say im the minority. Regardless, thats not much of a perspective to look onto. "Well-written" isnt a valid reason for it being kept. And that was the main point i saw in your previous comment when you initially disagreed about the article World of Ghost in the Shell. The article is mainly made up first party sources, just as any terminology sections can come up. The truth is terminology sections are avoided and for good reason. Ghost in the Shell multimedia series with different interpretations of different writers, meaning it has several interpretations and not subject to just one article, it doesnt completely fall under WP:SPLIT. However, the difference between article and section is that the section is merely one aspect and article is the topic itself. Terminology sections can easily be avoided without the problem of confusion.Lucia Black (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC is in order? It doesn't look like either of you are getting closer.∞陣内Jinnai 19:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Come to think about it - these sections would almost always be written from an in-universe perspective, but nevertheless, they can still work if they can be sourced. I cannot really think of a conclusion about this, so perhaps we should have the RfC? Getting other opinions on this would help. Still neutral though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The source for these sections would generally be the work of fiction itself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
But wouldn't those be primary sources?. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
yes. It would.Lucia Black (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
So is it ok to have an RfC now? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont know...i have a feeling were going to have to rely on RfC for a while considering the lack of editors holding their ground. Still, i find this more as an uphill struggle just to keep sections that are more of a hindrance and rarely used. First, terminology sections arent used as much and they are sourced through primary sources. Second, they are fictional aspects of both story, setting and character sections can cover. To split it into section from the other two that already covers those aspects would be giving it more focus on the fictional elements. At least if you are defending the use of these sections provide an example on how a good terminology section would look like without downgrading the article then maybe i would consider it. Though honestly this argument seems unnecessarily difficult. No Featured, GA, or even B ranked article has had a terminology section that i know of and adding one to them would most likely affect the article negatively. If this doesnt convine anyone then by all means go to RfC to solve this but i have a feeling the lack of edittors in this project is going to make things difficult to get a strong consensus for anything.Lucia Black (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


Well I have yet to find any. And as you said, none of the good articles have terminology sections. Pokémon doesn't have one, nor does School Rumble or Clannad. Besides, they would usually fall under WP:OR or something. They can be mentioned in the setting but only if their non-inclusion will affect the article negatively. Perhaps the RfC should instead ask whether terminology sections violates WP:FICTION, WP:OR or WP:INUNIVERSE. But although I wouldn't recommend removing them (yet), integration into a Setting section would be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How about first seeing if the plot section of the article is easy to understand without taking into account the setting sections? That would make the setting sections unnecessary for the understanding of the readers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the World of Ghost in the Shell article, and that is a pretty decent article. It's not about the terminology but about the setting though. My original problem was most terminology sections were not well-written and should be fixed, but now I am wondering if they should be kept at all. It will probably be on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how much each individual term changes the story's understanding. Setting sections are meant to further understand the story and to a degree character sections too. For example, "stand alone complex" is constantly referenced in ghost in the shell: stand alone complex's plot however we dont even need to mention it to understand the basic plot summary. Some of these terms may not be relevant enough to understand the basic plot line. Eureka seven for example has many terms that may help understand the plot further but does not help the basic plotline and some of them might be better off in the plot or setting.Lucia Black (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh no nihongo!

Excerpt from FA article School Rumble:

  • Three video games based on School Rumble have been developed and released in Japan. Marvelous Entertainment published the first game for the PlayStation 2 entitled School Rumble: Sleep Helps a Girl Grow (スクールランブル ねる娘は育つ, School Rumble: Neru Ko wa Sodatsu) on July 21, 2005. It was later reissued on August 10, 2006, as a The Best range budget release. The Japanese video game magazine Famitsū awarded the game a composite score of 6.8 out of a possible 8.0. Marvelous Entertainment released a second game, entitled School Rumble: 2nd Semester – Summer Training Camp (of fear?)!! Ghost's Appearing in the Western-styled Building!? Fighting Over the Treasure!!! (スクールランブル二学期 恐怖の(?)夏合宿! 洋館に幽霊現る!? お宝を巡って真っ向勝負!!!の巻, School Rumble Ni-Gakki Kyōfu no (?) Natsugasshuku! Yōkan ni Yūrei Arawaru!? Otakara wo Megutte Makkō Shōbu!!! No Maki) on July 20, 2006, also for the PlayStation 2. The story revolves around the School Rumble cast hearing a rumor of treasure hidden within a mansion. Two versions were produced; a regular and a limited edition, the latter of which included a drama CD, memorial album, and a special box with variant cover art. On June 28, 2007, this game was also re-released as a "Best Collection". School Rumble: Case of the Older Sister (スクールランブル 姉さん事件です!, School Rumble: Nēsan Jiken Desu!), published on July 7, 2005 for the PlayStation Portable by Bandai. It has an original story based around Karasuma suffering a sudden collapse. Although the story centers on Tenma, the player can take the perspective of other characters to obtain clues for solving the mystery.

I've been starting to wonder if we should have some sort of style guideline concerning the use of the nihongo template. I'm finding myself often running into examples like the one above, where prose suddenly becomes chopped up by large blocks of moonspeak and I'm left searching for where the content resumes. I've found that this is often a problem in media sections where a lot of titles get mentioned with little to say about them, but even the rest of article can be rendered difficult to read if every character and term gets repeated three times.

Having the full translations is nice, but of little use to English-speaking readers. It is supplementary information, which is nice when integrated smoothly, but bad when it hampers readability. Ideally, I think it would be great if the nihongo template somehow collapsed (hid) the Japanese text by default or something, like how the old spoiler template used to work. That might be a contentious change though, especially considering how it's used outside of this project. Otherwise, I think longer translations should be put in a notes section instead of the prose itself. Or perhaps we should just do without nihongo template within the prose (aside from first usage for the title in the lead). Thoughts?--Remurmur (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

of course. The nihongo template is added once and maybe twice if it ends up in the lead but other than that we use it once per title, if the title repeats we don't add it again. The templtae is to show kanji and the romaji and they dont disturb readability that much because usually the nihongo template is added in the sentence that often introduces the given media with that title. Sometimes the main english title is separated from the japanese title if the original uses a different romanization.Lucia Black (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You can always put the {{nihongo}} as part of a note at the bottom of the page if there get to be too many of them in one paragraph or section. Just use whichever English or Romaji title works the best, then put the full usage in the note. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Baccano! interviews

I'm specifically looking for interviews which may describe production and conception for the characters Isaac and Miria. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think there are any? That's a small part of the series. Searching, can't say I see anything. Plenty of discussion but not interviews. --Gwern (contribs) 00:41 30 December 2011 (GMT)
Well, thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said on the GA review, there might be something on the DVD. On the official site, I've found four staff comments mentioning Isaac and Miria, but they're in Japanese so I can't read it. So I can't really determine if they're helpful. These are the links, if anyone cares to look at them: Ep 2, Ep 3, Ep 12, Ep 13 ~TenTonParasol 01:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Son Gohan to Gohan

Since Son Goku was changed to Goku, i made a new discussion to change Son Gohan to Gohan here. Hopefully we can get this over with quickly.Lucia Black (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year

Well just "Happy new year" from France.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New year =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year too! Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
明けましておめでとう! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"A class" and "drive" question

How come we have an A class listed on WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment but never use it? I think its a neat addition. Also, would it be possible to start an Anime/Manga B or GA drive for the project? What would be needed? Thanks. 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I Honestly never found A-class to be not so useful as it use to be. Ive seen other projects that barely use it.Lucia Black (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The A Class assessment was meant to serve as a preparatory step before FA. Unfortunately this class is very ill suited for project with few actives members like the anime/manga. To compensate we always used "Strong B" Class meaning that anime/manga project is way stricter with B class. In fact you have to request an assessment to B at Wikipedia:ANIME/ASSESS to get it. There was some 2 years ago a lot of discussion about A Class and nothing changed since then. --KrebMarkt (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New source: Sci Fi Encyclopedia

Jonathan Clements recently announced that the Sci Fi Encyclopedia 3rd edition is now public; this is of considerable relevance to us, as he listed just as examples a number of entries falling under our scope ("Since the Encyclopedia focusses on authorship, there are entries on the original creators of Sky Crawlers and Akira, 2001 Nights and Star Blazers. There are details of the Japanese variants of Flowers for Algernon and the translation of Neuromancer, Japanese experts on Jack the Ripper and the big names in yaoi.") Clements wrote a number of them, and he's a very competent guy (you might know him from the Anime Encyclopedia).

I've added the site to the CSE and my archival queue, and already added external links to a few pages, but I'm sure there's much more that could be done. --Gwern (contribs) 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gakkō no Kaidan (Ghost Stories or Ghosts at School)

Hi. I've been searching for the air date of this anime, in the US (the ADV dub). I can't find it anywhere. Can someone help me? Thanks, Ryōga Hibiki (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think it aired in the US? According to this press release, it was put on DVD by ADV in 2005. No evidence it was ever on television. ~ Hibana (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Venus issues

There is a content dispute concerning the "Abilities and Powers" infobox section in the Sailor Venus article. The relevant discussion can be found here. Input from project members on this discussion are welcome. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Toki o Kakeru Shōjo

The naming of Toki o Kakeru Shōjo is under discussion, please see Talk:Toki o Kakeru Shōjo. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Future War 198X

Hi, I'm starting out on an article draft of this gem and will put in my userspace for now. I need eyes and ears on the Japanese version of the page and use it to complement the article as well. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time I find it better to do the article first and only use the Japanese article once its near completion.∞陣内Jinnai 17:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The draft is here. It's not really much, but extra help would be much appreciated since the film never got that much of a release and it seems Anime Bargain Bin, while it has a lot of stuff about the film, may be an EL violator site. Anybody who can help are free to check out the page and add more info as necessary. I'm trying to use the animanga infobox but it somehow merges with the voice cast box I made. Weird. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Infobox should go at the top. Start with that.∞陣内Jinnai 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple good articles from Tor

I saw these articles and thought they might be useful:

Enjoy! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Manga in Europe: new source

Hi! I just found an interesting source that describes the growth manga in Europe:

This could be useful in articles describing the popularity of manga worldwide. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Have used it in Manga and Manga outside Japan.--Cattus talk 01:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Source about changing manga market

This source discusses the changing US and Japanese manga markets:

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone willing to do a B-class drive for February?

I can do the assessments and award BarnSakuras at the end but I'm not sure if there's enough interest for this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing. I'm currently working with Eureka Seven little by little but i can also look over other C-class articles.Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a couple links above which might help better-reference some articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Case Closed episodes reaching template limit

List of Case Closed episodes reached its template limit so I had to remove the OVA section. I'm planning to split the episode list into List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–10), List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 11–20), and List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 21–current) in the future if it isn't a problem. I'm choosing 10 seasons since even at 20, it was a difficult page to load. If there are no objections, I'll be splitting it once it reaches the limit again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just make a separate page for each season, then have a template on each one with links to all of the seasons. This is commonly done for TV series (a page for each season). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There already is. I think the issue is about the overall list article that covers all the separate season list article. I think it might be easier not to have a list article summarizing the other 21 seasons.Lucia Black (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It is already divided into sub seasons like that but its hitting the limit anyways. I'm going to have to separate them into 10 seasons each pretty soon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
im suggesting not having a list that groups all the seasons or any from 1-10, 11-20,21-current.Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I saw, this was in response to Nihon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe make a list of case closed seasons rather than individual episodes. A table showing premiere and finale along with number of episodes each one has.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also convert {{cite web}} references to plain text. That would allow for about two hundred additional episodes. Goodraise 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. I still plan on splitting the list up though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont think thats the best choice. There should be something about this, considering the information practically repeats.Lucia Black (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There has always been repetition such as the sublists in List of Case Closed volumes. The only thing differentiating them is the last paragraph in the sublists which detail information on the volumes of the sublist; Such as List of Case Closed volumes (41–60) where the last paragraph is Tankōbon volume 41 to volume 60 encapsulates chapters 414 to 630. Shogakukan released all twenty volumes between April 9, 2003 and January 12, 2008.. I plan on doing the same for the 10 season lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats different. You propose sublist for sublist. And lets slow down a bit, seems like we dont have a unclear consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up again on the weekend once I'm well rested. I don't think I'll be reconsidering my idea though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets see what consensus says.Lucia Black (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Making it into 3 lists

My current plan is to move List of Case Closed episodes to List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1—10) and then making lists like that afterwards. If there are oppositions for this, state why. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1) There is no need to branch this off into a subsection. 2) My main reason is, though the number might be more consistent, it seems all for the sake of organization. I really dont see why we need an overall list of episodes when coverting them as seasons is enough. I have not seen every single episode to date, however im curious to know if there are arcs in between seasons or if they cover the same if there are any. Also i find it unnecessary to go into that much detail of episodes. For example List of Beach Volumes seperates per volume and does not give individual chapters, why not convert it to a list of episode seasons?Lucia Black (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to organize this neatly into a single paragraph so I'm listing my points.
  • The reason the "List of Case Closed episode" becoming into three articles is because of the template limit. That is why it has to change.
  • Episodes have more depths than chapters and that is why episode lists are currently that way. There was a discussion on this in the past.
  • All episode lists always have a "hallway overview" article and I don't plan to change that.
Being probably the first episode list that breaks the template limit, even though the episodes are divided into subsections, it seems most logical to just break up the pieces instead of removing the hallway. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that, but im more worried about if there are arcs that go across multiple seasons or inbetween seasons. The template breaking will happen soon for a series of recent hits such as One piece, Naruto Shipuuden that might end up close to passing the limit. And it really isnt about "exception". Im wondering if they sell multiple sets of seasons together and see if that makes it easier to organize. That and im also wondering how it will look in the navbox template. Im just thinking a change wouldnt hurt and might simplify things easier. The number of seasons seems long enough for its own list.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize List of Oh My Goddess! chapters article

As we all know, the article is currently a mess due to the inconsistency of chapter releases. I propose we split the list in two evenly one side having all the names of the chapters and the other side merely mention what number of chapters it has such as "Chapter XX - Chapter XX". This wouldd look much cleaner and easier to read. But then again, im also considering the chapter releases be separated from the english release considering it has their own titles and organized differently.Lucia Black (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in what I have in my sandbox. – Allen4names 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No. Basically looks nearly identicle to the chapter list template, but instead of both english and original language sharing the chapter list. It splits in the middle. One side has the full titles listed, the other side only mentions what chapters they have.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks great Allen. You shouldn't be so quick to turn it down unless you are willing to do the effort in making the table. We're all volunteers with no obligations. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe i turned it down quickly because theres not much of a difference compared to the one we have now. I just came here for consensus to do it because it will be a big change and it was previously discussed. Lets not make this about us, lets keep it about making the best organized list without making it look complicated and intricate. What do you think of my proposal?Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see what you have in mind as I have no idea what you intend to do with the volume information. I suggest you set up a sandbox version with the first twelve volumes (seventy two chapters). I made a tweak to the chapter list style in my sandbox that may be of use. – Allen4names 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The one you have doesnt have the re release of oh my goddess chapters in its original format under the original japanese ones. The same way the average chapterlist template works only a line going down the middle of the chapter list.

No. Original release date Original ISBN English release date English ISBN
00 XX-XX-20XX0000000000000 Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid prefixXX-XX-20XX9781000000009
  • 001.
  • 002
  • 003
  • Title: XXX
  • chapters 1-5
The story was moved forward and characters were developed.

Only difference is with the middle line through the middle.Lucia Black (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The following table should give you a better idea of what I have in mind, and yes I know the styling and table are incomplete.
Chapters Japanese English (first release) English (second release)
No. Volume information No. Volume information No. Volume information
  1. The Number You Have Dialed Is Incorrect
  2. Isair of the Anime Mania
  3. A Man's Home Is His...Temple?
  4. College Exchange Goddess
  5. Those Whom Goddess Hath Joined Together, Let No Woman Put Asunder
  6. Single Lens Psychic: The Prayer Answered
  7. Lullaby of Love
  8. The Blossom in Bloom
 1 September 23, 1989
ISBN 978-4-06-321009-5
Chapters 1–9 		1 Wrong Number
June 5, 2002
ISBN 978-1-56971-669-4
Chapters 1–8 		1 October 2005
ISBN 1-59307-387-9
Chapters 1–9
  1. Apartment Hunting Blues
 2 Leader of the Pack
August 7, 2002
ISBN 978-1-56971-764-6
Chapters 9–14
  1. An Honest Match
  2. This Life is Wonderful
  3. Love is the Prize
  4. System Force Down
  5. My Older Sister!
 2 March 23, 1990
ISBN 978-4-06-321013-2
Chapters 10–16 		2 December 7, 2005
ISBN 1-59307-387-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
Chapters 10–16
  1. I'm the Campus Queen
  2. What Belldandy Wants Most
 3 Final Exam
October 2, 2002
ISBN 978-1-56971-765-3
Chapters 15–20
Is your use of {{Graphic novel list}} here an example of what you had in mind? – Allen4names 02:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I know. I already saw it. The problem with that one it does not look any better than the one we have now. And yes similar to that template only the template doesnt split the list columns. In the middle. Do you still not know what i had in mind? Basically what we have already in the current template when it comes to dates and ISBNs and chapter list be split. One side shows in dtail the list of chapters (japanese and english re-release) the other side (english original release) have summarized.Lucia Black (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Remind me of something I have been working to get rid of so I oppose your idea. – Allen4names 03:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Am i sensing some Bias here? It seems rather uncivil.Lucia Black (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

im just going to be bold about it, because im starting to see some bias reasons appear and shouldve catched on earlier.Lucia Black (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that what you did with your last edit was just a mistake. – Allen4names 16:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_52&oldid=1166490012"