Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 53

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

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Claymore

Hello, you guys might want to keep an eye on the Claymore pages (chapters, episodes and main). A user named Jamieclaymore has edited it a lot lately and this might not always be improvements on the pages. 86.87.73.104 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This does look like an issue. We'll see what we can do.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Berserk

I split the Berserk (manga) page in two a few pages. The manga page had turned into an article about the series, rather than the manga. I created:

They need work, images and a lot. Feel free to give input. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they shouldn't have been split. Manga article has a lot of unsourced information that could be original research and not a lot of reception, the anime reliable sources are only being reception. Also Reception shouldnt be all about scores and they shouldnt be in a table. Try to expand the reviewers inputLucia Black (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should have never been split. We don't create separate articles for anime & manga of a same franchise because one is an adaptation of the other with a lot of redundancy in terms of plot and characters descriptions besides increasing the difficulty to update each article evenly. Another point is that on the instant you create a spin-off article, you should be more than ready to justify why the article can pass any Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. In your case you would have to provide evidences for the manga, the anime & the movie adaptation separately which i doubt you have the means to achieve a such feat.

That said, i won't argue further with you as i'm no more an "active" editor but i have to point you why it's going to be a trainwreck eventually and mediocre editing show off. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Anime article has been merged back again. I'm not sure what to do about the Infoboxes for the movies. Does each one deserve an infobox? There could be as many as 10 films released, and that many infoboxes would fill the entire article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject but I could lead you to some articles that you can use as a reference. Case Closed and List of Case Closed films. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSE milestone: 4k URLs on blacklist as it enters year 3

http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4

To mark the second anniversary of this useful tool (I began it in January 2010), I have added in approximately 700 new domains to the white and blacklists while cleaning up most past queries.

While I'm at it, I've decided to make my work still more publicly available: the exported black/whitelist of my CSE is available at http://www.gwern.net/docs/gwern-google-cse.xml and I plan to sync it every 3 months.

Many happy searches. --Gwern (contribs) 20:40 9 February 2012 (GMT)

Throws confetti in the air* Woo!!!!!!! lol - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations for the anniversary. Just wondering, but could you redirect www.gwern.net/cse or cse.gwern.net to the CSE to celebrate the occasion? :P -- クラウド６６８ 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the former, but be aware that the redirect will likely break when/if I ever switch my hosting from NFSN (which gives me an Apache .htaccess) to Amazon S3. --Gwern (contribs) 21:39 9 February 2012 (GMT)

Should terminology sections be kept or should its contents be incorporated into the Setting section?

I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Unless you know the basics behind the plot without some of the terms the reader may not understand it. The terms are explained in the manga books on the first page or so and on the DVDs usually as they important to understanding the story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But couldn't those terms just be incorporated into the Setting section's text? Of course, no one will be able to understand the plot of Naruto without knowing what a Jutsu is, or a person won't be able to understand some of the plot twists in Madoka without knowing what a Grief Seed is, but do these terms need their own section? Couldn't the most important terms just be incorporated and the trivial ones be moved elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Removal. I have not heard of a plot that is so complicated it needs its own terminology section. Most of the time, if written clearly, a plot overview can be enough to detail the outline for general readers. Looking at your example, Shakugan no Shana, the plot has an unformal tone and can be rewriten so a terminology section is unnecessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Remove. Terminology sections do more damage then most realize. They put more focus on the details of the story and gives the articles a fancruft tone. It also makes articles more in-universe and make story sections more complicated than they need to be. Just having the basic outline of the story is enough.Lucia Black (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep – The terminology sections do need to be kept to a definition of terms and if short can be incorporated into the plot section as prose or a subsection, but any series that has a large number of unfamiliar terms should have a section to explain them. – Allen4names 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment there are a large number of terms, several series have. But the problem is the inclusion makes it so dependent to in-universe focus. WHich i'm sure we are all aware of. So far, there has not been one single article with terminology sections that does more benefit than harm. It gets in the way of briefly explaining fictional aspects.Lucia Black (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with the concerns by Knowledgekid87 and Allen4names, the terminology sections are very important to understanding a manga's story. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But to what degree and what cost?Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong removal Ugh, when your terminology section is twice as long as your plot section, then you've really bungled. What's distressing is that each of these terms completely fails at being succinct, all rambling on for a paragraph's worth of cruft. Each term should be summed up in a sentence, and then that sentence should be inserted into the text itself at the first mention of the term. Shakugan no Shana seems to already do this anyways. Agree with Lucia Black, these do a lot of damage to credibility.--Remurmur (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Checking the Terminology section of Shana, it appears that it takes up more than a quarter of the entire article, which is quite scary to say the least! That's a great waste of bytes that could have been used for more useful and non-fancruft content, such as information about the series' production, origin, reception etc. As for Madoka, the terminology section is about as long as the plot section, but it still feels out of place. Terms like Puella Magi and Grief Seed should have only been discussed in the setting section instead of its own section. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially of terms that will only be of importance to a small group of people. Now don't hate me, I like both series very much (I have many Shana songs on my laptop) but should the terms be kept (especially the important ones), it is best to just mention them in the Plot section. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel like no one wants to find a way to write a plot without it. And I highly doubt terminology sections inclusion will help any article reach up to at least B-class. Alot of series have dozens of terms, and yet theyre not that common. Does bleach make termilogy section to explain soul reapers or Hollows? Are these terms "necesary" to understand the "basic" plot? How about this, how about we "prove" how necesarry they are. Can we honestly say the inclusion of these said terms wont affect an article affecting its GA or FA status? So if i add a terminoloogy section to said GA/FA and give it a GAR/FAR, can we still say the story wont be affected? This is about fiction itself, the usage of terminology section also expands to novels or tv shows. A GA-class TV series with alot of terms deserves a terminology section, do we all believe if i included terminology section, and give it a review, it will still stay as GA-class? I really want to hear your answer.Lucia Black (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

keep. I am not an expert in this subject. When I come to an article here, it's to find out the basics about something about which I previously have no knowledge. The pure narrative description of plot, introducing everything along the course of it, is confusing. It may be clear to those who know the work well, but these are notthe primary audience. The concepts in these fictions are generally very strange to me, and it really helps me have some idea what the work is about to have them set out clearly. The relevant policy is that WP is a general encyclopedia, and is written for the general reader--sometimes it willl meet the needs of a specialist also, but that can't be counted on. Encylopedic material is material that helps understanding of the topic, and these concept sections do just that. (There is also the point that it is a lot easier to write such sections, than to write clear plot descriptions. Writing readable accounts of complicated plots is an art, that most WPedians who work on these and other fictional topics have not mastered. A less skilled person can describe something concrete; a continuous narrative is much harder.). DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then if it wasnt so narrative, it would be easier to understand? A very complicated series known as Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex has a very simple layout. It all depends on how you want to write it. Like i said, lets put terminology to the test. I also feel this isnt fitted to just this article but in all media aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please also note that I do not know any featured article or good article that has terminology sections. Even InuYasha and Bleach do not have terminology sections. Anime does, but it is more of an etymology section, it is in prose form, and is sourced and not written in a fan-crufty way, which cannot be said of most terminology sections, which is why I would rather have them incorporated into the Setting section's text. Besides, shouldn't terminology sections, should they be kept, be written from a real-world perspective? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes but i dot think anyone hear wants to expand on the discussion. Rather its being left to vote count. And unfortunately the wikiproject isnt as busy as it use to be and, some are aware of this aswell. I havent even seen a B-class article have a terminology section. We all know theres a way to write them without them.Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

~~I would be greatly interested in hearing Jinnai's opinion, but he hasn't edited since January 31st. Never mind, he's active, the January 31st bit was probably a software error or something.~~ I could also ask WhisperToMe's opinion, but I don't think he contributes to the project anymore. Besides, I'm not for their total removal, just their content's integration into the Setting section. Actually, there is a World of Naruto article, but it has many problems, but at least it has a "Creation and conception" section. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree intergrading it into the setting is best, it also helps choose whats most relevant to understand the basic plot. Some may expand to make a world of naruto but there needs to be some form of third party reliable source. Such as reception section. Thats why splitting story elements from the main article are often discouraged.Lucia Black (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge into plot/setting I've never been one for anything that could potentially turn into a pile of unsourced OR, so the more terminology is incorporated into the plot, the better. My view on the matter was pretty much summed up by User:Remurmur, in that each term really only needs a single sentence at most, and anymore would be excessive. Terminology sections divided by term definitions came out of the need for readers to easily find the terms in a list, and while this might be good in a practical sense, it's not very encyclopedic, and smells of how a dictionary operates. So terminology sections should be discouraged outside of plot/setting.--十八 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Moon discussion

The recent mediation case on Sailor Moon (English adaptations) has been closed and Lucia Black (talk · contribs) has opened up an important discussion about whether we should merging it into the main article Sailor Moon. There is a strong consensus on the mediation that it should be merged with the main article itself. As such, we are planning to clean up and remove unreliable sources from the article. Input and suggestions from project members would be very much appreciated. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation.... Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleach Season 9

Hello, This is the first time I post here and hope I did it right. Anyway, I wanted to ask about the Filler arcs of Bleach. Recently I edited the page List of Bleach episodes (season 9). When I first see the page, it's says "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series with the same name by Tite Kubo", which is wrong, this season is not based on manga. So I edited the page, deleted the "based on the manga.." part and added "This season is a filler arc, which are not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo.". But User:Tintor2 undid my revision. After I explain it's wrong and edited again, this time he look away the line I wrote.Hokaru (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Filler or not, it's still based on the manga: It's simply not a direct adaptation. For compromise, it should read something like, "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series of the same name by Tite Kubo, is the first season to use a completely original storyline." The word "filler" should probably be avoided for its negative connotations.--Remurmur (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Im pretty sure it wasnt the first one.Lucia Black (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to readd Kubo's credit in the last edit.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, if the word "filler" is not allowed, then why not just write "This season is not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo." Or "The series is based on Bleach manga by Tite Kubo. Unlike the other seasons, season 9 is not direct adaptation from the manga". Or "Unlike the other seasons, season 9 is an anime-only arc". People who watch the anime and didn't read manga will not know that season 9 did not take place in manga. Adding that this season is not direct adaptation from the manga would prevent confusion. And yup, season 9 isn't the first filler season. Hokaru (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source stating that. Its like how some editors had tried to push adding manga chapter to their respective episodes. They insisted using a primary source to state that the anime is an adaption of a certain chapter; this was considered original research. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt it being considered original research. There must be a term for such story arcs that arent based from the original storyline when a reliable source is talking about it.Lucia Black (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only bringing up an old discussion where they determined using primary sources to determine what chapters were covered in what episodes as original research. What I meant in my first sentence was to provide a reliable source then the editor can do what he wants. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, alright. So I just need to provide a reliable source. So, at the starting of episode 168 itself, the narrator said that "The battle against Arrancar still rages on, but we will pause before continue that tale. Now, a new story like none before it will unfold. The curtain is about to raise on a strange battle." Can someone tell me how do I cite the episode? I never cite from certain episode/manga before, so I am not really sure. Please advice.

And another source, the season 9 first DVD 「BLEACH」“新隊長天貝繍助”篇DVD, it's said "アニメオリジナルストーリーの“新隊長天貝繍助”第一巻"" which translated as "Anime original story "The New Captain Amagai Shūsuke" Vol.1" This link is taken directly from Offical aniplex 新隊長天貝繍助篇 DVD page, they are reliable source. Did I need to cite both (episode 168 and DVD)? Or just the DVD will do. Hokaru (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaucers

Would you please comment about the Japanese title of Dinosaucers at its talk page?--Mujaki (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Needing help from somebody who has the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha from January 30th

The January 30th issue of Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha (issue 1) has an interview with Naruto author Masashi Kishimoto involving not only the series but the author's personal life. The official site has the first page and I managed to find a script confirming everything that is said in interview. However, I can't find an author of the interview or the page. As far as I could complete it, the citation would be:

Misaki C. Kido (2012). "Interview with Masashi Kishimoto". Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha (1). Viz Media: 118–121. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Is there anyone who has access to the issue and has other parameters to add? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's by Misaki C. Kido, on pages 118–121; I went ahead and filled in the info above. Part 2 is in the February 6, 2012 issue (issue 2), on pages 120–123, in case you need that info too. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Tokyopop

I have some questions related to potential Tokyopop edits. With the company only being active in Germany, should manga that have been previously published by them keep Tokyopop in the Infobox? Also, should they keep the Tokyopop Categories link? (Esw01407 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

i think they should be kept in the infobox and categories should not be touched.Lucia Black (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For works that were only licensed by NA Tokyopop, I added a ([Beginning year] – 2011) in the infobox with a source. The edit was done on NG Life. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Ranma ½ chapters

I am hoping that someone can help cleanup the romanizations at List of Ranma ½ chapters. If you know the correct readings of the kanji or have the tankobon/shinshobon please make any needed corrections. Once this is done (or before) the crufty external links can be removed. It should be noted that the {{Nihongo}} template is not used because of the template limits and that current consensus is that the page should not be split for now. – Allen4names 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not split it right now? It looks like the series already ended and the number of volumes make two decent lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say, but this is almost exactly what i wanted to do with Oh My Goddess! chapters but the only issue is not list the chapter titles and simply just say "chapter XX-XX" on the English version's side as the titles translate the same.Lucia Black (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DragonZero, if you feel the list should be split please propose it at Talk:List of Ranma ½ chapters. – Allen4names 07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight for it. I'll just leave it to the article editors. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrietty page move discussion

There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film Arrietty should be moved to the official US title The Secret World of Arrietty. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Arrietty#Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title? and the requested move discussion is just below this discussion. Input and comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

input on manga and anime character as an action hero or not

The List of female action heroes includes a lot of anime and manga characters in it. Some entries are in dispute such as Mikoto Misaka from Toaru Majutsu no Index. Is this person obviously an action hero, based on the genre of this series defined as "action" and the fact that she runs around fighting people in action sequences shooting psychic lightning at them and what, etc.? Is it common knowledge or original research if we don't find a source that specifically calls her an action hero? Is anyone familiar with this series of other anime series listed? And are there list on any reliable sources out there that show the greatest action heroes for anime and manga or anything else relevant to this article? Dream Focus 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga rather than here? I don't think the discussion has anything to do with pages being deleted, and more people will probably see it there. Calathan (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I had the other page bookmarked so I hit its talk page and posted there by mistake. Moved it over now. Dream Focus 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes discussion

There's a new request to move discussion that been created here. Sarujo (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Old interview from Kappa Magazine

I'm looking to verify and complement some citations appearing in Pegasus Seiya. The existing reference points to an interview with Masami Kurumada published in Japanese in "Kappa Magazine, number 80. 1999". I'm coming to suspect that this interview is actually from the italian magazine, but I can't be sure of anything. Any help finding more information about this would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cyn starchaser (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on how I can improve this page?

So as I mentioned in a previous discussion here, I am somewhat of a big fan of Shakugan no Shana. One of the manifestations of this is my enjoyment of the music of Mami Kawada, my personal favorite being the song "triangle", the 2nd ED of Shana II. However, it disappoints me to see her article in a state of mess, but this is understandable, as she's as not as famous as singers like Yoko Takahashi, Maaya Sakamoto, Aya Hirano or Nana Mizuki (whom I share a birthday with), or even fellow I've singer KOTOKO. Since I am more used to new-page patrolling, and contributing to articles is a new experience for me, can someone please help me what parts of the article need to be improved, and how I can improve them. I have already fixed it a little, such as stopping the excessive use of the words "tie-up" or "tie-in" and replacing them with something else, but I do not know how I can improve it any further. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you wanted to fix the article Mami Kawada. I'll post some things I noticed from my quick skim, even though I never worked on biographies.

Lead: Overall, it needs to be rewritten in a better format. First paragraph should introduce her and the beginning year of her debut. Second paragraph would probably consist of her first work and future notable work that helped jump start her career. You don't need a long list of what music was used for what anime. You can probably sum it up in a sentence like this. "Some of her music were used as the theme music for the anime series XX and XX"

Body: Doubtful about how the headings are organized. Titles should be in a Nihongo3 template unless they have received official English translations. I'm not sure about biographies, but (since the body consists mostly of the music she produced, oricon charts, and records) consider having an overview section with a table about her music such as the one in Aqua Timez.

Others: The website in the infobox should only have one link which should probably be Mami-kawada.jp. Also try to find a free image of her, if possible. Also to note, her discography and live performances were noted in her biography yet they are re-mentioned as separate sections. Consider merging them otherwise. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

However, Aya Hirano's page also has a similar Discography section. Anyway to fix it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, a question. When exactly to use the Nihongo and Nihongo3 templates and what is the difference between the two? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Nihongo3}} should not be used for song titles, as it italicizes the title track. Song titles are never italicized, so simply use {{Nihongo}} for song titles with Japanese titles.

This is a bit contradicting in the MOS/Text formatting. It stats italics are used for foreign language yet not used for song titles. I believe it should be italicized for the first reason, as none of the singer's songs have been given English titles; which is way Nihongo3 is preferable. And like I said, I don't have much experience on biographies. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's basically to differentiate between songs and albums when discussing music titles. It would be confusing to the reader to italicize songs only if they're Japanese. Normally I'd agree, but song titles are specifically left unitalicized to differentiate them from albums and EPs.--十八 05:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The separate discography section with her three albums should be kept, as is the case for all musical artists. Furthermore, the table in Aqua Timez is far too detailed. For instance, the track listings should not be in a discography, and the number of weeks charted is also unconventional. For Mami Kawada, her discography already has a separate article, so you don't have to worry about that unless you want to clean up that article too; if you do, take a look at Nana Mizuki discography as a good example.

For Aqua Timez, I'm going to disagree on it being over detailed. I find its current format is better than letting the singles and albums have their own articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean that style should be encouraged in other articles, however. That article was actually the first time I've ever seen track listings embedded in a discog table, and as long as I've been working on music articles, it was pretty apparent early on that track listings are not to be listed, as it is a discography, not a songography. Besides, not a single FL at WP:DISCOGS has track listings. Is that really something you should be deviating from?--十八 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dividing the body text by albums is pretty conventional, but not always necessary. A general rewrite of her biography section is needed, with details on her early debut with I've Sound, her initial music releases, her solo debut with details of her singles and albums, and mentioning any song which was used for theme music. Of course, only write what you can source with reliable sources.
A look at GAs for singers and solo artists at Wikipedia:Good articles/Music#Other music articles would also be helpful, such as Alicia Keys.--十八 21:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Toonzone

Hi all, I have started a discussion on toonzone on reliable source notice board, i would like to get as many editors involved as possible soa consensus on the site various parts can be have resolution and eventually archived consensus decisions that all user will be able to look over in the future. Here is the link to the thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Toonzone please i really encourage all editors to participator as this is used as source for main article son wikipedia and there is always arguments over it, i have tried to collect the different areas of the site as there is many and post my opinions on each part so lease join in--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Another request for an interview from the Shonen Jump Alpha

The latest February 27, 2012 of the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha has an interview with Bleach's author Tite Kubo and might be useful for the wikipedia articles. I managed to find the scripts, but I have no access to the actual magazine to find its pages numbers or author from the interview. Apparently the magazine is conducting interviews with various authors who have their series published by the time since last time I found an interview with Naruto's author Masashi Kishimoto, so I guess One Piece's Eichiro Oda would be the following. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The interview is in two parts. The first part appears on pages 122–124 of the February 20, 2012 issue (issue 4), and the second part on pages 124–126 of the February 27, 2012 issue (issue 5); both parts were conducted by Misaki C. Kido, who also did the Kishimoto interview.

As far as issue numbers are concerned, it seems that SJ Alpha uses the release date as the issue number: issue 5, for instance, is identified as "Issue 02-27-12" on the TOC page.

As for future interviews: Toriko, Bakuman., and Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan are also being released in SJ Alpha, meaning the next interview may go to Mitsutoshi Shimabukuro, Tsugumi Ohba/Takeshi Obata, or Hiroshi Shiibashi instead of Oda (though I would go with Oda being next myself). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have access to the Masashi Kishimoto interview? I found the interviews, but I still lack the pages numbers and the issues from the two parts.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, see above. I have a year's subscription, starting with the first issue (and a couple of the preview issues), so if you need anything feel free to ask me directly on my talk page. =) It's also worth noting that there are features on sjalpha.com that are not subscriber-exclusive; one example would be interviews/bios with a couple of the staff of Tiger & Bunny. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, according to the April 2012 issue of Shonen Jump, there'll be an interview with Oda in the March 19 and 26 issues of Weekly SJ Alpha, and an interview with Shimabukuro in the April 2 and 9 issues. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be useful in Eiichiro Oda and something related with One Piece.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added all the citations for the interviews to User:Tintor2/Sandbox 2-2 in case another user needs it. I'll also try to update it every time possible.Tintor2 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Koibana Onsen

A new manga article, author: Kenjiro Kawatsu, publisher: Hakusensha. Recently proposed for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lupin article question

Is there some consensus or guideline that I'm not aware of that dictates that all Lupin the 3rd articles must be titled Lupin III, regardless of how they are titled in both in English and Japanese romanization? Sarujo (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Lupin the 3rd vs Detective Conan? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just one example, yes. There's Treasure of the Sorcerer King, the Funimation released features, and so forth. My thing is if the title is reading officially something besides Lupin III the corresponding article should reflect that. Then you've got editors who often try to title articles as Rupan Sansei. Sarujo (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are any. I'd go with the officially translated title and treat it like its own work. But on the other hand, I took the main article's name for some of the articles at List of Case Closed films. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Spammer?

User Elena.movileanu has just added the site http://mangakaotaku.com/ to the external links section of a number of articles. As near as I can tell it is a manga-themed affiliate site with a lot of automatically generated content - their Ken Akamatsu page is basically the wikipedia article fed through a mangle ("In his teens, Akamatsu applied himself to Film Study..." to "As part of his teenagers, Akamatsu utilized him self in order to Motion picture Research" for example). Shiroi Hane (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've got rid of all the links. One had also been added to Osamu Tezuka (in the wrong place) by User:31.153.11.66. I can't do anything about the account other than put another warning on their page. Shiroi Hane (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Try bringing the site to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Even the seemingly active "forums" are fake; the "topics" are questions taken from Yahoo Answers and passed through a thesaurus (compare [1] and [2]). I've seen sites build entirely of content scraped from other sites to generate page views plenty of times but I've never seen a forum entirely populated by bots talking to each other before. Shiroi Hane (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is spamming. I gave the user a stronger warning. If they do it again, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will then block that user. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Manga demographic category names

Some manga demographic categories got renamed after being listed on WP:CFDS, and I've started a discussion at WP:CFD to move them back. I listed the discussion on the deletion sorting page, but it isn't really a deletion discussion, so I thought I should mention it here too. There also was a related ANI discussion in case anyone is interested. Calathan (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are any of the anime and manga categories merged to begin with? They're different media, often only tangentially related to each other and are functionally analogous to films and novels. We don't have Category:Films and novels with subcategories like Category:Slice of life films and novels, so why are we treating anime and manga differently? Note I have no problem with the Wikiproject being for both anime and manga, just the categorisation. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember them all having been separate before, but then some of them having been combined. I think the reason was that a lot of articles were tagged with the same categories for both manga and anime (e.g. "action manga" and "action anime"), and people thought it was redundant. However, I don't remember for sure, so maybe someone else here remembers better why they were combined. Personally, I think having them separate would be more accurate even if it means that many articles will have multiple similar categories for anime and for manga. Calathan (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You remember correctly; most of these were merged as a result of a series of CfD's in 2007.

As for this particular matter: I actually saw the nominations before the 2-day window had passed, but I've been away from Wikipedia for so long that I thought nothing of it (and it didn't help that it was pretty late when I saw them). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Square Enix publishing sales

Here's an archived citation I just made listing sales for FMA, Black Butler, Soul Eater, and Bamboo Blade among other titles published by SE. I don't know how WP:ANIME normally incorporates sales info, so I'll just leave it here for anyone who knows better than I. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.square-enix.com/eng/group/index.html#comic2 |title=Businesses - Square Enix Holdings |date=2011-03-31 |accessdate=2012-03-25 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/66QfthNsj |archivedate=2012-03-25}}</ref> Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Idea/Suggestion

Is it possible to create a Special:Random function to work in this portal? So, the random page function would retrieve only anime and manga related articles. It might be useful to people curious about anime and are casual readers looking for something interesting to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepe263 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You can use this tool, naming "Anime" or "Manga" as the category. Good raise 10:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should Odex be included in WikiProject Anime and Manga?

Hi all, I'm currently working on the article "Odex", it's a Singapore-based company that deals with anime licensing in South East Asia region. The article is tagged as an article in WikiProject Anime and Manga, is it suitable? Or should I just removed the tag and stick it to WikiProject Singapore instead?
I'm still new in editing Wikipedia, so please let me know if you have any feedback, thank you. --Vaktug (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If I can recall correctly, Funimation and other anime distribution companies are included as part of WikiProject Anime and manga, so it's safe to assume that Odex can as well. A section detailing their actions against illegal file-sharing can also be of help, but remember that all statements must be sourced! Happy editing! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Yes, there's a page that is about their actions against illegal file-sharing and it's even promoted to a good article. That's what I aim to do for the Odex page too, at least make it a B class article. Who should I look for for reviewing and feedback? I've posted on Odex's talk page but there's no reply. --Vaktug (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Juhachi is a very experienced editor when it comes to anime-related articles. He is probably willing to help you out as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the props, but company articles are a little out of my experience. Looking at some company GAs or FAs would be a good start in the right direction for building up the article. However, a quick look at the article shows some obvious issues. The business model section is a good start, but improperly sourced, and I doubt the section needs all those subheadings, especially with the numerous one-line paragraphs. The history section would have to be converted from bullets to a proper prose style detailing the major events that shaped the company and its business. Also, the large list of licensed anime could be removed and replaced with a category, like how Category:Funimation Entertainment is used in place of a list at Funimation Entertainment.--十八 10:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Juhachi for the help and advice! I'll look for more company page for reference, and probably will start a talk at WikiProject Singapore too since the page is part of the project. Btw, the external links that you removed might be the new titles that Odex license, although there is no source.... It was already there when I start editing the page, it was added by a user called DioxiE, but he no longer exists.(History) So shall I put the titles back or just removed them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaktug (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That edit looks more or less like vandalism to me, so there's no need to add in that block of text again.--十八 02:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Juhachi, thanks again for all your help!!! Really appreciate it.. And sry that I forgot to sign on previous comment, still haven't get used to it, haha! --Vaktug (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

References issue within List of Captain Tsubasa volumes

List of Captain Tsubasa volumes has a considerable amount of citations in the body, but none of them are visible within the references section. I have been taking a look, but I cannot find the reason for this. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it hit the template limit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll propose a split in the talk page considering each series has its own handful amount of volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Proposal added here.Tintor2 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Something which might fix this is getting rid of the absurd notion that absolutely every volume needs to be cited. I think it would be sufficient to have one general ref for a section, or only reference those which might be controversial for some reason. Linking to every volume on Amazon.co.jp seems quite absurd to me, and going far beyond what should be necessary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes a lot of things which aren't absolutely necessary, like lists of volumes and chapters. Curious that it's so often the most useful part of lists like this, the references, that people want to get rid off. Then again, references to Amazon aren't exactly the most reliable. If sources were found containing all the release dates, not just the first and last, I'd be happy to see general references instead of citations for each item. Good raise 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you can reference the volumes themselves for the original publish date as all Japanese books include the day, month, and year on the publishing information page. So, this information should never be controversial or contested unless it's obviously way off base. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Shueisha's site does not contain the dates for the Captain Tsubasa and World Youth series and thus, amazon had to be used to reference its volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I did with what i had at this time as Shueisha tends to kill stuff no longer in print from their website while Shogakukan has even reference to first edition of Doreamon. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"all Japanese books include the day, month, and year on the publishing information page." I wasn't aware of that. For books where this is indeed the case, a simple footnote (one for the entire column) explaining where the information comes from would be enough. This approach should be preferred over using references to Amazon. However, I wouldn't like to see references to more reliable online sources removed in favor of this; being able to check release dates without having to pick up each and every volume is convenient after all. Good raise 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that confirming the information in this way almost always requires physical access to the volumes in question; something the vast majority of readers (and editors) won't have. I understand we don't reject references based solely on the difficulty of checking them (I'm pretty sure there's an essay on that somewhere), but there's not much reason to prefer a reference that is very hard to check for the vast majority of people over one that is significantly easier to check. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Good raise 09:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Aah, relevant to my point would be this sentence from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost: "When sources of equal quality are available the ease of access may be preferred, but if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones." In this case, equal-quality sources where one is (significantly) easier to access would be in-volume versus on the publisher's website, whereas lower-quality but easier to verify would be Amazon.(com|co.jp) pages. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 08:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Akita Shoten revising its website

The website Akitashoten.co.jp has made a significant change to its style, changing the urls from all of their manga volumes. For example while Hungry Heart volume 6 could be obtained here earlier, now it is dead link and can be located in this url. Just wanted to give the news since several lists will need to be updated or be given archives. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology sections

Last month, I started a discussion on whether or not terminology sections, such as the ones at Shakugan no Shana, Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Strike Witches (whose terminology section currently has an OR tag and an In-universe tag), should be kept or not, but the discussion died without any form of consensus. Now, I'm reviving the topic, but instead of asking if they should be kept or not, I'm asking what the people here actually think of such sections. This discussion aims to answer the following questions:

Why do some articles have such sections in the first place?
Are such sections encyclopedic?
Can terminology sections be considered fancruft, trivia sections or dictionary entries?
How terminology sections' content can be merged into other sections, and which particular sections (whether Plot, Setting etc.)

This discussion is not intended to be a proposal to remove them, but to see which particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines can apply to them, or how they should be written if there is sufficient support to keep them (such as if they have to be written from a real-world perspective, or if the section needs sources). This way, consensus on some guideline on them can be reached. Such sections are fairly rare anyway, so if they are removed, it probably won't be much of a loss, but still. Hopefully, consensus can be reached this time. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My reply would be:

Articles have them since an editor based them off another article, the editor or fan feels it is significant and should be separate from the plot.
I haven't seen a terminology section that was encyclopedic yet.
Possibly. It would require an expert in that article to edit the plot so it can flow smoothly while incorporating terminology for non-experts.
It should be merged to plot. I actually don't see a lot of articles with a setting section.

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

S · A: Special A has a setting section. Not that it is a good one anyway, and that series does not even have special terms or such. To my knowledge not even BLEACH or Naruto have terminology sections, but that's beside the point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think their is potentially a way where we can keep terminology sections while being encyclopedic. Most editors find terminology sections easier than incorporating into a setting section. Merging to plot would be good usually, if its not a complete fantasy-based world. For example, Durarara!! mainly sets in a real-world setting and has very little terms. So theres just not enough to create a terminology section to have a setting section. But the information of terms (enough to lead ppl to think a terminology section is needed) would mainly be background information. I think, not all terms should be merged to the setting, but if a new term is introduced, then we give it some explanation in the plot if its that relevant.Lucia Black (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This has since been brought up at least two times with no consensus reached. The terms can be a key part of the plot, I say keep the terms in place as some can be referenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Like? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Terms are most often located at the start of the manga they are in and as bonus features for anime, I know for Shana (Anime 1st season) there is a whole segment that goes into the terms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think terminology section can help if there are many terms used in the plot, setting, or character or summary sections. It can cut on duplicate explanations. If there is no need to use much terminology in those sections, then it can go.-Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Essentially terms are part of the plot, but that does not mean they merit their own subsection such as story and setting (because they're part of both). Many terms have been introduced. And the reason why there has never been a clear consensus is because many editors are treating this as a democracy. Terms are essential if you make them that way. There many ways to go around a terminology section. terminology sections do more damage then good and makes articles that less encyclopedic. I dont think those who support it actually see this in an encyclopedic manner. And it may sound uncivil, but in reality, why should we have in-universe sections that do damage to the article? No one who suppports is willing to prove their point.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The same counterpoints one can use against a character list. It too is "in universe", and other thing you mentioned. Characters list exist for concise explanation of in-universe concepts called 'characters".Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlike most terms, characters can have out-of-universe information such as creation and conception, production, development, merchandising, cultural impact, legacy, reception, portrayals, and so on.

I've never actually had the need for a terminology section. In my experience, many terms pertain to characters. They are job descriptions, conditions, etc. If not, they are important objects, events, and what-not that can be covered in plot coverage. I also find that trouble arises when the term includes all these important details that cannot be easily and succinctly covered in a character or plot section. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything though. The closest I can come up with Mythology of Carnivàle, but that doesn't really apply. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IS this enough consensus? Or do we need more points being brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Lucia Black, no consensus has been reached yet again. Feel free to add some input, but instead of a rant, discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of terminology sections, whether ot not they should be used, and why. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries can be used as a starting point. I would leave the section titles as "Terminology" unless there is consensus to change it to "Glossary". – Allen4names 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a proposed guideline that doesn't seem to coinside with any policies. The issue isn't to change the name, is to remove them and introduce the terms in story and setting (if theres enough to have a setting section).Lucia Black (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are in fact Glossaries on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

At least they have reliable sources, and they are not about fiction. Terminology sections on Wikipedia are mostly just fancruft. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed something strange. Look at the terminology sections of Strike Witches and Toaru Majutsu no Index (why do these Mami Kawada/Rie Kugimiya shows seem to always have terminology sections?). In both of them, they have {{OR}} tags in them (strangely, Madoka and Shana don't seem to have any such tags). Does that mean that terminology sections are inherently synthesis?. I know plot sections can have no sources whatsoever and can still not be considered OR, but what about terminology sections? Can they be considered OR or not, and why? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No terms are not original research because in many cases they are explained in the Manga and sometimes the anime they are in, while it may be in universe its not original research to quote the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the issue of them is OR. But the fact that they put more emphasis to separate them from story and setting and even characters. Keeps things more focused on in-universe style in which no one seems to argue against. The only thing is whether the necessity of terminology sections is greater than the damage it causes. IN which case any damage would be bad. I dont see why this is straight forward. NO one can prove the usefulness of them, and most are trying hard to make this a democracy (vote count).Lucia Black (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms are most likely never going to have their own articles, if you just throw them into the plot it is going to be confusing to the average reader which is another problem. To remedy this as best as possible (In some cases you cant, but in some you can as every article is diffrent) why not keep the terms seperate if they seperate in the Manga and anime anyways? I understand your POV Lucia but plots can be complex if the terms are explained seperate in the works I feel that we should too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That isn't true, in fact putting them into the plot will help find which terms have most impact to the series. So maybe in Naruto "a new justsu" he learned that wasn't completely relevant to understanding the story (for ex. lets just say for example "walking on water" technique) wouldn't be added in. That's why we are saying they are too in-universe, because terminology forces to have a list of all fictional terms regardless if helpful or not to the average reader, while integrating it into the plot will help find which one is most relevant. Also, terminology sections merely explain the terms while keeping the story straight to the point. It only takes one sentence to explain a term. Separating terminology isn't the same as separating manga and anime. Anime and Manga are two different media and you know this, separating the two would be because the anime or the manga have had enough notability to become an independent article. i shouldn't be explaining this to you. Terms are related to Plot and most of them don't have any notability. Jutsu (Naruto) passes because there's enough notable information to have its own article. Characters as well have out-of-universe relevance as explained.Lucia Black (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As for my two cents, terminology sections would be good if: A. the terms are essential for understanding a basic description of the plot or say a description of a famous instance of the media (although, it may be better to write this information into the plot description, or some background section). B. if the terms have a standalone significance but not enough independence/writing about it to justify a separate page. Jztinfinity (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen one of those yet. I also bet I can fuse all the terminology into the plot section so the general reader can understand it just fine; though it would require I be an expert on that subject. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus seems to now be towards placing the terms in the plot, after thinking it over I support it as long as the terms are explained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to do just that at Shakugan no Shana#Plot and characters; how does it look to you?--十八 11:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it looks way better. It may still need some improvement (the merge of plot and terminology means that it is now more biased towards the terminology), but it is still a massive improvement from the previous version. Now what about Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Strike Witches and Toaru Majutsu no Index? Their terminology sections remain, and in the case of the latter two, are pretty problematic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Shana looks better now, good job on a patch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be great if we added some form of guide in the MOS on avoiding Terminology sections and trying to implement the vital terms into the plot, setting, or characters.Lucia Black (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No objections here, go ahead and suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, a suggestion cant hurt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can't there be vital terms in the plot, but also have a terminology section? I think if you are trying to quickly reference terminology there should be a page for that. Thepoodlechef (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just asked at MOS what to do with term. sections. No response yet, but let's see how it goes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are other articles such as Pandora Hearts and Guilty Crown that have terminology sections along with several other issues. The general MOS i dont think it's best fitted. It's better to go to MOSFICTION. I couldn't find it until recently hence why i haven't replied in a while.

Also replying to Thepoodlechef: Because then terminology sections would be too in-universe if they go the extra mile to mention non-vital, non-notable terms. Its also too much of a guide-book rather than encyclopedic.Lucia Black (talk)

Merchandise sections in character lists

Can anyone tell me why we're including merchandise sections in character lists? Where action figures and the like are an important part of a franchise, they should be discussed in the main article. Where it's just milking some additional money out of a character's popularity, we're just turning ourselves into a free advertisement. I think we should get rid of them. Thoughts? Good raise 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

[s]Agreed notable merchandise sections go on the article's main page as they are part of the series as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[/s] (Edited: 4/2/12)

I also support the removal of the merchandise sections from the characters page and move it to the main article itself as a whole. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure we understand us correctly. I'm saying merchandise sections should be removed from all character lists and that some of those sections should be placed on their corresponding main article. Are you saying that we should remove all merchandise sections from all character lists and move all of them to their corresponding main article? Good raise 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my stance on this because having notable merchandise sections in the character lists or character articles helps them as most are In-universe as it is. If the merchandise has references but you dont feel its notable enough to be in the character article then yes move it. Unreferenced and non-notable merchandise should be removed alltogether. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you using the word notable here in the same sense it is used by WP:Notability? If not, can you give an example of a piece of merchandise that's worth mention and one that is not? How, in your opinion, can we distinguish them? Good raise 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am referring to WP:Notability an example of this is used in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters which has a merchandise section and is rated as a featured list, ones that might not be as notable would be List of F-Zero characters in my opinion, only one reference is used there for merchandise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. An example of notable (in the WP:N sense) merchandise would be Kenner Star Wars action figures. These are notable because reliable independent sources have discussed them. A company offering merchandise resembling a particular fictional character doesn't make that character notable. The same is true for groups of characters. Good raise 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the references part but when you said you wanted to remove all those sections from all character lists I wanted to bring up that there are some exceptions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Then let me ask differently. Why should we mention non-notable junk like that? It doesn't help establish notability. We're only providing free advertisements to the companies producing them. Good raise 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Source: AnimeCons.com/ WP:A&M/ORS Cleanup

AnimeCons.com is presently listed at WP:A&M/ORS. What makes it reliable? Good raise 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked for additional feedback over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AnimeCons.com - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well so far I have had one respose stating that the website is not a reliable source, this is big if it is not because alot of our articles reguarding anime conventions uses this info as a source - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. Won't be the last unreliable source I'll find in there either. Good raise 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Its good that you are finding these, any improvement is for the better, convention lists though will be allright with other reliable sourcers describing them, I expect though AfD's with ones with just this source though and the primary ones. The WP:RS list for our project is in need of an update. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AnimeCons.com might have been listed as reliable because it has received coverage from Anime News Network and Right Stuf's Anime Today podcast [3] [4] [5], and has been used as a source by Anime News Network [6]. However, I don't think that actually shows that the database is reliable, but instead that things written by the site's staff is reliable. I would consider it similar to Anime News Network, where the news stories and articles are considered reliable, but where the user submitted database is not reliable. Calathan (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if nobody objects then Animcons.com should be placed uner "Situational" in WP:A&M/ORS, someone did also reply over at the RS noticeboard that since it is indeed user submitted that it is not a WP:RS for that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs)

What's sorely missing at WP:A&M/ORS is rationales of the form: "Part X of source Y is reliable for type of content Z because ..." When reviewers (for example at WP:FAC) ask "What makes it reliable?" This is the kind of answer they want to hear. What I'm trying to say is: Make that page useful by adding rationales instead of just links to project discussions. Good raise 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved to the "situational" section. I also posted a similar comment to what I wrote above at the RS noticeboard, to see if anyone there agrees or disagrees with my opinion. Calathan (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment It would be nice to get some other editor feedback too reguarding WP:A&M/ORS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment AnimeCons.com has been listed on ANIME/ORS since it was split from the main project page on March 23, 2009, where it was added a day earlier by User:TheFarix after a discussion, though he was asking specifically about whether the podcasts on AnimeCons.com were reliable.

Other discussions concerning AnimeCons.com include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Conventions/Archive 1#AnimeCons.com policy (there are some other mentions elsewhere there) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 47#What makes AnimeCons.com a reliable source?; there are other mentions throughout the archives (interestingly enough, it seems AnimeCons' owner has contributed to the project, as User:PDelahanty). The general attitude towards the website historically has been that while anyone can contribute information for it, all such contributions are vetted for accuracy (normally with the convention's own website) before being added; it seems to have been treated as the ANN of anime conventions: a general source of information, if handled properly, but not adequate to establish notability for convention articles. —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.167.197 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 00:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Still, for the moment I'm inclined to say that this page shouldn't be used at all. It might help bring this discussion forward if a proponent of using the site were to present a specific case in which he or she thinks it would be okay to use it. Good raise 00:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That may not happen; neither TheFarix nor PDelahanty have edited since late 2011, and as I recall, they were the major convention article maintainers (why is everyone I edited with disappearing?! D= ). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, the two of us aren't that active anymore either, are we? Good raise 04:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the situational classification, I've run into several situations where the information is not always accurate or incomplete, but it's a good starting point. I would also agree with it not establishing notability. Where my concerns are, if AnimeCons.com wasn't used at all, is aside from the vast cleanup required (in some cases might be good for articles that need updating), would be the potential loss of convention articles (for the good or bad I do not know). Esw01407 (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is good at drawing wikipe-tan ?

There is a request over at Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan for a drawing made of her for another wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually good at drawing my own, but i'm not good at digital. if i can give someone a scan of my version, the person could attempt to copy the basic idea.Lucia Black (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaori Yuki

Hi everyone. More eyes would be appreciated over at Kaori Yuki. 206.221.154.218 (talk · contribs) has been adding poorly sourced / nonsourced biographical material, and I think she/he could use some help in distinguishing between high-quality RS and not reliable ones. I'm also concerned about the level of hostility in her/his edit summaries. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragonball Expert

Whoever is an expert at it, could they look at Tsj52's edits and redirect them? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here read Happy Happy Clover?

Someone has been adding a character named "Bluebell" to the character list at Happy Happy Clover. I've seen the anime, and that character is not in it, but I've not read the manga. Since the person adding the character lists a voice actor for her (which can't be right, since I've seen the anime and she isn't in it), and since I can't find any evidence that there was such a character in the manga, I've been reverting the additions. However, if anyone here has actually read the manga and can confirm that there isn't such a character in the manga, that would be helpful. Calathan (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kimi ga Nozomu Eien

The article has been stuck in a state of mess for many years now. The "Game" section looks more like a game guide, it lacks a "Development" section and "Gameplay" section, and the adaptations have their own sections instead of being under an "Adaptations" section. I tried cleaning it up using previews, but it proved too difficult. It's quite a shame, since I rather liked the Rumbling Hearts anime when it aired on HERO TV a few years back. The article's quality should at least match our articles on other visual novels such as Kanon, Little Busters!, Kud Wafter and School Days, considering it and its anime adaptation were somewhat popular. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is quite a shame, since I too enjoyed the anime greatly when I watched it years ago. Other than a concerted group effort, or a large effort by one or two dedicated users, I don't see it improving much. Well, I guess the same could have been said about another Âge game, Muv Luv, before TheFarix fixed it up.--十八 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Too bad TheFarix isn't active anymore, and so is Jinnai. How can the article improve now? I tried but it was just too difficult. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Farix and Jinnai haven't been editing? Man, we '06ers are becoming an endangered species (Farix, Jinnai and I all started in 2006)! You'd basically have to start from the ground up. First off would be reforming the adaptations into a single section, and cutting out some unnecessary bits. Using the GAs you mentioned would be a good way to show you how you should go about it. To Heart 2 is the most recent visual novel article that became a GA, so that'd be good to look over too. It's only as difficult as you make it out to be. Even if you lack experience, looking at articles of a similar subject matter can go a long way to learning various editing techniques and formatting. That's what I did when I first started editing, and still do to a certain extent. If you don't want to deal with the article's content right now, just start a blank user subpage, or use your sandbox, and write it as if there wasn't already an article, then merge in whatever content from the article in that later. I can understand the daunting nature of the article, as it has a lot of content, so starting small and working on building it up a little at a time is definitely the way to go so as to not get overwhelmed. There is no deadline, so you can take as long as you want. I can see the article getting up to GA if the effort was put in.--十八 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done some restructuring, but the article still needs to be trimmed. It has Reception now, but it's still a little short. I did a little re-wording on some parts. Thinking of doing more edits soon, but I could use some help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good references for these people?

I'm currently thinking of creating stubs for these two I've utahime (singers):

I can't seem to find any reliable sources for either, so I'm not sure if they are notable (the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have pages for them either - there were but they were deleted recently). If sources cannot be found, then can a redirect to I've Sound be alright? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Masahiko Kikuni

Can someone improve this article a little bit? Thanks in advance. --Hydao (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Terminology section at Puella Magi Madoka Magica necessary?

I'm having some thoughts at the terminology section of Madoka right now. Does it really need that section at all? It's much shorter than the one that Shana used to have, but I feel that its contents are better suited for the Plot section, or for a separate Setting section. I could suggest this at the article's talk page, but Madoka is little-watched and I would want some wider hearing so that some consensus could be reached, as well as having some ideas on exactly how the section's contents could be merged elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Osamu Tezuka

The article Osamu Tezuka has been vandalized by an IP hopping vandal redirecting it to Osama bin Laden. I will try to correct any redircts that have been editted by bots but I may miss some so please check any that you know about. – Allen4names 06:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Specific User Vandalism

Bit of an explanation here. A new user has been on an anime forum I moderate, talking about how a number of anime series are co-produced with Germany. He then links to their respective Wikipedia articles, were Germany appears as one of the countries of origin. He keeps saying he's finding more and more anime that are "actually German". After a quick bit of investigation, user Johnryanz has been adding Germany as country of origin to a number of anime series. His "contributions" are Here. All of his changes have been made between April 29 and May 5, 2012, the same dates that the poster on the forum has been active. I figure he's just trying to troll some weeaboos by doing this. I'll be removing his country of origin additions momentarily, but I wanted to alert active Wikipedia contributors to this. He's also been making these same additions over at IMDB, but I'm afraid I can't dig up history logs for page changes there.

On his Wikipedia account he has indicated that he is around St.Paul Minnisota in a previous contribution, which matches the location of the IP address for his account on the forum.

Update: Additionally, his forum name is Cambodia, and he has made several changes to the Powhatan article, saying that the tribe descends from Cambodia. That has been fixed, but should serve as further proof of his vandalism.

129.63.2.67 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you report him to maybe the incidents noticeboard. If he continues, he can be reported at AIV. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Copying into Wikia and/or other Wikis

So, what's the "policy" regarding copying some text into anime related Wikia, or other Wiki based sites? Would there be a problem at all upon doing this? The advantage is two-fold: (1) copy-text may serve as a back up to the original article(s), and (2) writing styles within Wikia do not necessarily need to conform with Wikipedia:Fiction and other Wikipedia policies, which may impose a limit on related content. This is particularly true for anything related to in-universe writing. In any case, this inquiry is simply wondering about the prospect of copying Wikipedia text elsewhere. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of law. The text of Wikipedia articles is available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Cheers, Good raise 09:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Fairy Tail characters peer review

Just so everyone is aware, List of Fairy Tail characters is up for peer review here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

2D Love

The article 2D Love is currently a one-line stub, if anyone is interested in adding to it a little. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems more like a neologism to be liable for a prod or AFD.--十八 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Though "relationships with fictional characters" isn't something that doesn't exist, I've never heard of this term actually being used before. It seems like a neologism that's never caught on. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the actual concept of relationships with fictional characters has received some coverage, but the actual term hasn't. Foe example, I can pretend I'm in a relationship with Tomoyo Sakagami from Clannad, but I wouldn't call it 2D Love, and probably wouldn't need to anyway. The website Sankaku Complex does cover the concept regularly, but not by the term "2D Love". There's only one source (The New York Times) but it appears to have been a guest article by a writer from a website called Tokyo Mango and I'm not sure if the latter source is reliable, and the article appears to be about the actual concept and not the term. There was an article I found on the Christianity Today's blog but I don't think that will be enough. At this point, unless I see an ANN article that covers rather than uses the term, I'm considering listing it at AfD for the article to have a wider hearing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to include claims without proper sourcing with RS, per Wikipedia's standard procedures. If it wasn't for WP:RS and WP:V, I would have referred to the thing as "having a waifu" like they do on the *chans. I'm not denying there is such a thing; I think the subject could be explained better, and in its current state, it's not really that great. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it is best to start from scratch. This article should probably be deleted, then a new one should be written under a more commonly used title or if absolutely necessary, a long-form name, reliably sourced, then recreated. However, the topic is quite notable by itself and should probably have even a short article, since it's an important, but sometimes annoying part of otaku culture. I'm sure my waifu Tomoyo-chan would agree *wink*. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Will tag the article with a {{notability}} tag in a short while. If I can't find enough coverage then I'll send it to AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For my two cents, I would support an article on the actual concept of romantic relationships with fictional characters, since that concept has received coverage, but not with this title. My reason is stated at WP:NEO.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. [or in this case, there is one, but has not been used by enough reliable sources] It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Human relationships with fictional characters or something along those lines? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This content can be dumped right into the Moe_(slang) article. No need for a complete separate article for "waifu. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, not everyone they are in love with are actually considered "moe", although most are. (I'm looking at you K-On!) Most waifus however are female "moe" characters from fairly popular anime (like Haruhi, K-On!, Bakemonogatari, Infinite Stratos, Oreimo or even Madoka) though, no matter how developed they were in their original series (either well-developed or not much) or if their series was actually positively received or not by critics. This doesn't mean they have to be moe though, I think many years ago it was fashionable to have Asuka as a waifu, and correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC she's isn't usually considered moe. Moe mainly boomed in recent times because of Mikuru (I think), and from then it just exploded into a phenomenon. Still, a mention rather than a total merge would be preferable, but I think the article should have a wider hearing before the admins decide what to do with it. Maybe an RfC is needed? Probably not though, so will an AfD do? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Still most of Waifu is releated to moe, I would merge the content and send the article to AfD because due to lack of sources it is not going to survive on it's own. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, I've nominated the article for deletion. Comments can be made here. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, I believe this discussion shows that most of us do maintain a relationship with a waifu or husbando. For that reason, I have created a new userbox template, User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu. Cheers. -- クラウド６６８ 03:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's waifu is Wikipe-tan.

You know that is going right to my userpage right? =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that Waifu userbar limited to just one? XD KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope click on the link for the template - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can customize it to show the name of your waifu or husbando as shown in the page. I didn't expect the examples would be this helpful to Knowledgekid, though :P. -- クラウド６６８ 03:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Transformers manga

While working with Transformers articles in the last week, I've noticed that there are no articles on Transformers manga. I know that manga does exist (see http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Manga), but I'm not sure if any is notable enough for articles or even a general Transformers manga page. If anyone is interested, the topic is wide open. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the gnn/gnr template in FLC articles

Goodraise (talk · contribs) and AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) has raised concerns whether we should use the gnn/gnr template in anime/manga articles on my talk page. It has been implemented on List of Naruto characters, a featured list, List of One Piece characters and most recently, List of Fairy Tail characters. I am opening up a discussion here to see if other members can voice their opinions whether we use those for Featured Lists or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It could also be good to get an opinion from a FLC reviewer.Tintor2 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All right. We'll see what we can do about this. Also, should we consider opening up an RfC about the use of the gnn/gnr templates or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely preferable on character pages to cut down on size. I don't think it would be an issue for FLC either. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't be used. I'm merely advising caution. I created these templates for a highly specialized purpose: a constantly changing character list requiring massive amounts of citations to chapters spread out over a huge number of volumes. (Before these templates were written, I used {{ref}} and {{note}} in a similar way. Anyone interested can take a look at the history of the One Piece character list.) While I was still trying to make this, let's call it a "referencing style", presentable, it already began spreading. When I look at it, I see a bunch of flaws I haven't yet been able to overcome and can't help but think "man, this still looks crappy." On the other hand, that may just be overzealous perfectionism on my part. (I think I've put too much thought into this to be objective at this point.) Anyway, last time I checked, WP:CITE contained nothing that would prohibit using this style. So, if you want to give it a go at FLC, be my guest. I just can't recommend it. Especially since the typical FLC reviewer is a pedantic nit-picker. (Trust me, I know; I'm one of them.) Cheers, Good raise 06:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

gnn/gnr is close to the Template:Harvard citation documentation style which is used for referencing pages in books per WP:CITE. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Lupin III Part II episodes at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Lupin III Part II episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see some interest in saving this list's status as featured, it should be noted that WP:TV seem to strongly object to removing transclusions from episode articles, see the history of List of Friends episodes for a good edit history demonstrating what has happened in the past. Also, please remember that episode titles should be "in quote marks". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fairy Tail episode discussion

There is an important discussion whether the List of Fairy Tail episodes should be split into individual seasons. The discussion is at Talk:List of Fairy Tail episodes#Possible split?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New discussion in WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Hi everyone, The talk page for WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources hasn't had any discussions in a while, so just wanted to bring attention to a new discussion I started there. Please feel free to add your thoughts. --AutoGyro (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the source in question was LupinEncyclopedia.com. I went ahead and asked over at the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#LupinEncyclopedia.com and after some chat it appears that the source is unreliable. Now the norm is to just leave it be at that but the source has the misfourtue of being used alot in the Lupin III article, which is rated as a GA article, I have gone ahead and tagged it based on the outcome of the discussion, hopefylly reliable sources can be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bleach season 17 deletion

Someone has created List of Bleach episodes (season 17), which I conclude is a hoax. I've nominated it for deletion here. This should be concluded quickly. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting is know, I went ahead and placed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Grouping Japanese Light Novel/Manga/Anime/etc. Series into Japanese Media Series

As per Subject I would like to propose a suitable word, Media to be used in a complex series rather than using a single individual type of media and then tagging adaptions of it. This would make it feel more organized. This doesn't include individual series that has made into only 1 type of media.--Bumblezellio (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure wp:japan fits. I have not noticed these categories though.Lucia Black (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cross Epoch

Somebody's recreated the Cross Epoch article. I would redirected it but I don't where to redirect it to. Potential AFD discussion maybe? Sarujo (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

very diificult indeed. My best choice is attempt to prove notability of the article. However I'm pretty sure many have attempted it. Best not to redirect it since it relates to two authors equally.Lucia Black (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of articles by Jeangabin needs to be redirected due to lack of notability. I suggest treating Cross Epoch as a one shot and redirecting it to Weekly Shonen Jump. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Those pages exist in other language wikipedia. They should remain on the English version. We can't have pages for those articles in other languange, and not have it in English.

Most of the pages created are most notable than Kintoki. If those pages are deleted, it would mean that the Kintoki article that existed before those pages must also be deleted.

As for the notability, those manga are known and were released all around the world, in several different language. There are pages here for manga that weren't even translated in English. The simple fact that pages exist for those manga on foreign language versions of wikipedia proves they're widely known. Jeangabin (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not how notability is established per Wikipedia:Notability. Notability must exist through third party coverage. Lots of non-notable articles exist simply because Wikipedians feel no need to enforce that rule. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been at least two instance, that I know of, where a Cross Epoch article was created and subsequently deleted per notability guidelines. The last time, the name was put on lock as a result. Sarujo (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, it was more than just two. Sarujo (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the reasons why the previous Cross Epoch articles were deleted: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:CSD#A1, and then every other deletion were for Wikipedia:CSD#G4. Those reasons don't apply to the current article, we now all know that Cross Epoch is a real manga (the verifiability reason was involved in 2007), the second creation was obviously a poorly written article or vandalization. Jeangabin (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

For you Sarujo, why do you keep adding that Pink was published in V Jump? Pink was first published in Fresh Jump. V Jump was created in 1993, while Pink was first published in 1982. Jeangabin (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, Jeangabin. The edit status of the Pink article has no relevance to this discussion. Sarujo (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I leaved a message on your talk page and on the Pink talk page, but you kept readding the same false information. I had to put it somwhere you would have read my message. Jeangabin (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of animes

In WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television), I am developing an idea about proposing a new notability guideline about television-related topics, and it cannot limit to only fiction. Nevertheless, there we agreed that amount of episodes does not (obviously) establish notability, especially for animes. Anything on television, especially in general, can be discussed there. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied, an anime that has alot of episodes is just one factor for notability chances are that if there are alot of episodes for the series it will fall under other categories for notability as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

>animes
Ugh. Anyway, something getting an anime adaption (or an anime original project being developed) should in itself justify some form of notability, because there is a lot of money and stakeholder investment involved in making a series, and not everything ends up becoming an anime. Your typical C78 doujin might not be notable, and neither is a poorly-recieved manga, but once a light novel or manga becomes a full-season anime, surely that is enough to warrant notability. An anime isn't just something a team of nerds come up with overnight for $300. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this is two months old, but just in case this ever comes up again...Notability because of the amont of money needed to produce an anime looks like notability for merely existing. A lot of anime adaptations exist, but not all of them get thoroughly covered so that we can write about their development, reception and potential influence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of anime can be established though preliminary first volume sales rankings, television ratings listings, 2ch popularity polls, preorder ranks, and yearly total sales rankings. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". Your criteria are completely arbitrary (why would 2ch polls matter or be reliable in any way? first volume sales can be good but the other volumes can tank...) and don't necessarily garanty that we can actually write anything on the subject...GNG criteria are good and don't need changing especially if new criteria just lower the bar to extremely low and ridiculous levels such as being in online polls).Folken de Fanel (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about those being carved into a sedimentary stone formation. I suggested a handful of things that may or may not be helpful in suggesting what might be notable. These are things to look out for, when seeking notability prior to actually establishing that something is actually notable; the process is not the ends, in other words. Once something is deemed to be potentially notable, we then go on to whatever next steps there are to finalise notability. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"why would 2ch polls matter or be reliable in any way?" Why do United States presidential elections matter? The Prez really should have been Al Gore, popularity figures are so arbitary! Jokes aside, notability can be influenced by various things such as popularity, even though popularity does not directly equate to notability. 2ch polls pertain to some degree of statistical significance, because the sample demographic of 2ch can be closely compared to the target population of those within Japan who purchase anime. Polls are measurable as easy-to-understand numerical values, and their results often correlate to actual sales in varying degrees. Keep in mind that to make reasonable conclusions, we need to take into account both quantitative and qualitative data, and a good way of obtaining quantitative data is through numerical figures obtained through things such as polls. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just giving my opinion in case the idea of having specific notability criteria for anime ever moves forward. Good to see that you went from "enough to warrant notability" to "helpful in suggesting what might be notable". Again, in case there is serious discussion for actual notability criteria, while it can be helpful to define specifics for anime, it shouldn't significantly lower the bar from what WP:GNG already states, and just being made into anime (everything gets made into anime particularly since the 2000's) or arbitrary sale numbers (again, popularity doesn't mean critics will have something to say about it) are not enough. Looking at Notability for books, they clearly didn't stop at "adapted from a short story to a novel" or "book sales/preorder ranks". WP:BKCRIT expands on the GNG criteria but doesn't betray them, and anime should betray it either.

As for 2ch, per WP:USERG it's not a reliable source. Of course anonymous online polls without any control or verification system are not going to matter (and to think you compare that the US President !). Has there been any serious studies about the actual representativity of 2ch, how many people use several accounts or have dynamic IPs, etc ? I don't need to go further. Notable subjects are likely to also be popular, but merely being popular cannot be a criteria to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing examples

The following are some examples of such listings:

2ch's Top 10 best anime of the year (2011)

10位ペルソナ４ (Persona 4)
9位 TIGER & BUNNY
8位境界線上のホライゾン (Horizon)
7位あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない (AnoHana)
6 位 THE IDOLM@STER :
5位うさぎドロップ (Usagi Drop)
4位輪るピングドラム (PenguinDrum)
3位 Fate/Zero
2位 STEINS;GATE
1位魔法少女まどか☆マギカ (Madoka)

Spring 2012 Preliminary First Volume Sales

12,610 *1 Kuroko no Basuke [DVD+BD]: 2012/07/27

9,455 *3 Hyouka [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/29
9,138 *1 Accel World [DVD+BD]: 2012/07/25
8,918 *2 Haiyore! Nyaruko-san [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/22
7,990 *2 AKB0048 [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/27
6,966 *2 Saki Achiga-hen Episode of Side-A [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/20
4,887 *2 Eureka Seven AO [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/22
4,698 *1 Natsu-iro Kiseki [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/27
4,494 *1 Tsuritama [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/27
3,759 *1 Queen's Blade Rebellion [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/27
3,588 *1 Nazo no Kanojo X [DVD+BD]: 2012/07/04
3,499 *1 Jormungand [DVD+BD]: 2012/06/27

Amazon.jp preorder rankings as of 06 August 2012

- - ,**7位/***,**7位 ★ (**5,428 pt) [*,101予約] 12/10/24 12/07 Sword Art Online
  - ,*24位/***,*24位 ★ (**2,483 pt) [*,118予約] 12/09/05 12/07 Tari Tari
  - ,*26位/***,*26位 ★ (*14,730 pt) [*,*96予約] 12/09/21 12/07 Horizon
  - ,108位/***,*99位 ★ (**1,181 pt) [*,*30予約] 12/09/05 12/07 Oda Nobuna
  - ,134位/***,129位 ★ (***,702 pt) [*,*18予約] 12/09/26 12/07 Kokoro Connect
  - ,151位/***,156位 ★ (**3,781 pt) [*,*95予約] 12/09/28 12/07 Muv Luv
  - ,163位/***,150位 ★ (**1,390 pt) [*,**9予約] 12/09/26 12/07 Dog Days
  - ,224位/***,203位 ★ (***,951 pt) [*,*93予約] 12/09/26 12/07 Joshiraku
  - ,280位/***,379位 ★ (***,795 pt) [*,*12予約] 12/09/26 12/07 H ga Dekinai!
  - ,284位/***,271位 ★ (**1,613 pt) [*,177予約] 12/09/19 12/07 Jinrui
  - ,464位/***,437位 ★ (**2,034 pt) [*,*91予約] 12/09/19 12/07 Yuru Yuri S2
  - ,549位/***,581位 ★ (***,727 pt) [*,**7予約] 12/09/26 12/07 Campione

Collapsable because long. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Japanese anime review sites

Even though we are an English encyclopedia, our Manual of Style for anime and manga articles states that Japanese reviews would also be appreciated. Are there any Japanese sties that are the equivalent of site like Anime News Network, Mania.com, THEM Anime Reviews etc.? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are a whole bunch see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Japanese - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Madoka Mako

Im debating on if I should prod this or not all it has going for it is that single source. Any feedback? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal

I looked at the Viz English Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal Volume 1 and found that it uses the Japanese names (Tetsuo Takeda, Kotori Mizuki, etc.) for the human characters. Do you know if the practice continues/will continue for Volume 2 and beyond?

This differs from the practice of the Viz Yu-Gi-Oh! GX and Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's manga series (both use the dub names for characters who appear in the anime, while characters who don't appear in the anime use their Japanese names). The original Yu-Gi-Oh! manga from Viz does use mostly the Japanese names for the human characters (the exceptions are Pegasus and Croquet).

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont think its worth mentioning. Most likely due to zexal not having an anime.Lucia Black (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the article there is an anime.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other spin offs, the manga came out first for zexal. So most likely the anime got localized first in previous, then the manga followed the said changes in the anime that had been localized.Lucia Black (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The anime is the primary media for ZEXAL, regardless of the fact that the manga was released first. The anime was also the first of the two to get translated and released in English.

The anime was being dubbed by 4Kids, but they sold all rights (and some other stuff) back to Konami in the recent bankruptcy dealings; they originally had rights to dub up to episode 41, and it looks like Konami will continue the dubbing up to that point before deciding whether and how to go further.

The manga is licensed by Viz, and is currently being serialized one chapter per month in Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha. The two chapters which have thus far been serialized (a series preview consisting of chapter 1, and the start of the actual serialization consisting of chapter 19) have used the Japanese names, and I would assume this trend will continue. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This anonymous user has recently been making a lot of edits recently to anime casts which all appear to be at least dubious if not completely fictional. Someone else has already reverted a complete ficional cast for the Negima OADs (FUNimation hasn't even announced a license, much less an actual cast), I've reverted some odd changes to the Claymore cast (I just finished watching it) and, well... since when was Loveless dubbed in Texas? There's a lot of stuff to check through unless there's a way of just mass reverting the lot. Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I checked some of the edits and I couldn't tell if it was vandalism or not since I'm not an expert in any of those articles. As for Loveless, the article said an English dub vocal CD was released so the names could have been taken from that. Overall though, you can revert the edit for being unsourced and controversial. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The guy's been filling those Negima character and voice actor pages for months. He gets banned for a month then comes back as if nothing happened. :( AngusWOOF (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force You can help!

I am in the process of giving our cleanup task force a much needed update, if anyone has the time feel free to browse through stuff that needs a look at and help make our project have cleaner articles =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to go through the top 500 most viewed anime and manga articles to make sure they're on the list? I'm sure more than half needs work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now im going through Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged and making sure thats all set (Some of the articles in the category have already been merged and such) and populating the "Articles needing to be merged section". I will get to top 500 most viewed anime and manga articles though 1st when I place articles that need a cleanup under the other sections. This is big and there is alot to do so it will take some time thats why im inviting others to help of they can, there are open projects and categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay the page is now updated, all the articles listed for cleanup are active requests, I am still doing my best as well to empty the categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oricon charts database

Hey everyone, I just noticed that links to Oricon's chart database are dead. Apparently, they have been since at least December. Here's an example of what the pages looked like: [7] Various articles use links to the database, including a featured list. Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails out of the website (http://ranking.oricon.co.jp). Perhaps someone here knows or can figure out whether these pages have just moved to other addresses or are gone for good. Good raise 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this a while back ago. You now have to pay to use that specific database, but the individual chartings are still listed on Oricon's main site as rank-weeks; in this case, rank 1 and 5 weeks. You just have to update the links.--十八 04:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good raise 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English Adaptation) splitting

As previously discussed, Sailor moon (English Adaptation) is a major issue because it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POVFORK. So for a more neutral way of fixing it is merging info to it's respected articles (list of manga chapters/episodes, main franchise article) but the issue is the article will be way too long. So I propose splitting the main article into Manga and Anime. In the end it was proposed i would make a sandbox but didn't know how at first because the article has to be broken into multiple articles that already exist. So this is as far as i currently got for the moment and wanted to see if anyone would like to join in. This is my sandbox here. I currently just cut the info and renamed the sections to what section in what article it would go more or less. The only thing is now summarizing the information, fixing some ref problems and of course removing the unreliable ones which are easy to pick out, i might just take care of that. I'm not good with over copy editing to the point where ts well summarized so it would be really great to gets oe views. it doesn't have to be a significant amount, but ti would be a great help either way.

That and this article is one of the most bias articles i have seen. Including Editing of anime in American distribution which i also believe has some WP:SYNTHESIS.Lucia Black (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood completely but here's my opinion. I don't understand what you mean by neutral, but looking at original article and the sandbox, it needs an aggressive trim and compression; regardless of how readers feel. Things I noticed, from a quick skim, were the manga character names section, 1-2 sentence paragraphs, detailed list of specific changes in the anime section, and the lack of concision in the broadcast sections. As for the splitting idea, this can probably be related to the discussion they had for Dragon Ball after the other animes were merged. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for help.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This idea appears to be from Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation... The merge tags were removed and the discussion forgotton about. Lucia I would start a new consensus discussion here about it first before going ahead with a merge. You are likely going to get more voices here or on the article through an RFC. In my opinion I see a well referenced article there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It goes even further. I dont know if this is being looked casually. But please read POVFORK and SYNTHESIS in the links i gave on the first post. It really doesnt need consensus to say this article shouldnt exist.

The article concludes that sailor english localization has made itself more notable then the original japanese without proof. Its based on Point of View Fork aswell. Its treating the media as if it was different simply for the reason that it was altered.

Same media, different language. It was said consensus isnt necessary at this point if you understand the issue the article has. The discussion wasnt forgotten it was just ignored and no one (actually it was simply 1 editor) wanted to wait because they all want is one editor to do it all.

So i created the sandbox to show you all where each info can be merged to its respected (and should be merged to). I did not edit it in detail because i am not confident in my copyediting skills so i showed you all. It was a copy paste. All it needs is summarizing.Lucia Black (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So let me explain again, i need help summarizing the current info i have section per section and rework it to its respected page. Een then summarized there is enough to split the main article into two. (Anime) and (Manga), the split will be less subjective then having it Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (English Adaptations).Lucia Black (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If those do not understand the situation, here is the last mediation we had. Closed due to someone unable to give their statement for oppose. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sailor Moon (English adaptation)Lucia Black (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to open an RfC on this matter. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into Sailor Moon?

The main issues here are WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Despite a failed request for mediation and numerous attempts to discuss, it ended in a stalemate. Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into the main article, Sailor Moon? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There are plenty of sources for the adaptation of sailor moon in america. Sailor moon was a huge here as it was in Japan, and I feel that info comparing the two is fine as long as it's done in a newtral way and remove the things that imply that the Japanese or English version was better. Note: There is alot of unsourced material added in the article, this can be removed and the article improved upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Support - After thinking over things I can see no harm in the merge, go ahead with what you feel is right Lucia =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment I did a brush through removing POV and Unreferenced additions, the article just needs work done to it I feel that it has potential if it is cleaned up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't given the articles a real through look so bear with me. Pretty much all I see left after your edits is basically a history section of how 1. the anime was distrubted and 2. how the manga was distributed. I feel like it could just be rephrased as a release history, just detailing how Sailor Moon journeyed through the English market. There's a ton of information in the article already sourced which for one would be a headache trying to merge and would bloat the main article. If you switch the focus of the article to that, then POV issues would be gone. What do you think? AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Support The articles existence is violation of NPOV. Its the same media, yet separate article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Knowledgekid87, please understand the issue. The issue isnt lack of sourcing. Do you skim through the issue and just look at the article instead? The existence of the article IS what suggest the english version is more important over the japanese. Why separate the english manga and english anime into one separate series? When the most appropriate merge and split is by media, not by language.Lucia Black (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not just make it about the english releases and the infulance it has had here? Why cant wikipedia have an article that describes the impact about something that has the reliable sources and is notable enough for a stand alone article? I can just as easily compare this to any anime article, why should it include info in english? The article here describes the impact the anime has had on the english speaking world as well as compares diffrences. I can see the release has had a huge impact on the english speaking world and see no reason why the article can not exisit as a child to the parent article Sailor Moon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats the thing, both articles talk about the impact to the english speaking world. We might aswell merge the reception of the main article here. This is a POVFORK. I dont know why you constantly ignore that point. Thats when the fork is on the same subject (same anime, same manga). And it was dony by WP:SYNTHESIS. You actually talking about how much "impact" it had to the english speaking world contradicts your previous point on "removing the aspects that make it more important over the japanese". You literally proved this is WP:SYNTHESIS.Lucia Black (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I comment as one who hasn't really looked at the article past the ToC. I believe that an article that focuses on the impact of Sailor Moon on the english speaking world can exist. However, I think would be better that such an article be named Impact of Sailor Moon in X, X being whatever is appropriate. I believe that is what Knowledgekid87 is suggesting. The suggestion is to make the article into something akin to Cultural influence of Star Trek, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Those last two examples aren't exactly the best examples for this situation. But then I don't know much about POVFORKs and they go waaaaaay over my head. Although I can't really find an article in the vein of Influence/Impact of X on Y, I believe that such an article can be written in a completely NPOV, non-OR way without making the English adaptation seem more important than the Japanese. The way the article is now (according to the table of contents, at least), there is no reason for it and it should be merged, in my opinion. But if a respectable Cultural influence of Sailor Moon on X, I wouldn't say kill it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mainly the issue is that both articles cover the same media but treating it as if it was different. Yes alterations were done, but can be covered in summary-style. Mainly if it does merge, a more proper split would occur due to size issues, most likely a Anime and Manga article (or the manga article being the main one). However broadcasting info can easily fit into List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1). Its just it looks like alot of areas are lacking because they took them out to make this article.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering Knowledgekid now supports the merge, my above comments on what the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article should be is relatively moot. I still honestly believe the article should be merged and I support a merge. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment If and when this is merged the redirect will most likely need protection added to it. The page is currently watched by 52 editors and gets 250 hits per day about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Merge - The article is a POV Fork and is also a synthesis, same content, I don't see a reason why this article should stand alone. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

should we close this disvussion with the consensus to merge? Its been a while and no new comment has been added.Lucia Black (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Upotte!! names

Can we get some eyes on this page? Someone keeps going back and changing the names from the ones used in the official translation to gibberish. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you want those eyes to do there? When you have a content dispute with someone, try to talk to them before coming here. Good raise 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know exactly what neesds fixing as there have been so many IP edits, maybe make a section on the article's talkpage about what needs to be done? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since half the IPs are changing the names to gibberish and the other half are using the official translations per the MOS.... And there is a talk post related to this, it shouldn't take rocket scientist to figure out what the problem is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the gibberish. And you didn't answer my question. What do you want us to do? When IPs refuse to engage in discussion, get the page semi-protected. Problem solved. Good raise 11:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there references for the official translated names? Maybe that can deter some of that activity? I would also put comments in the page itself. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Magical girls

Hello. Recently I have seen the category Category:Magical girls incorrectly applied to non-anime articles, such as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. I think this is the fault of the category itself, which is poorly named, and does not even mention that it is anime-related in its description page. I think the best solution would be to rename this category to something more meaningful, such as Category:Magical girls in anime and manga, but failing that proposal, it would be good to at least place a full description of the category, and an indication of what the category is not, on its front description page. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! Good raise 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I considered going ahead right away but I figured out of courtesy and as a non-member of this project, I should at least notify you of my intention. I have made a minor edit to the category description page, and started a discussion for the rename here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2#Category:Magical girls. I would encourage you to join in. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen similar discussion on specifying Talk: magical girlfriend It should NOT apply to female characters in fantasy worlds (Harry Potter, Legend of Korra, Slayers/Lina Inverse (just removed that today)) although there can be a subsection on magical girls in Western media: then Sabrina would be okay as well as Wizards of Waverley Place. Also, entries were added to the list only when there was a source such as a review referring to the character as such. AngusWOOF (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also removed some more such as the DC comics character Zatanna, the Winx Club (Itinan Cartoon) Will Vandom (W.I.T.C.H an american TV series), Syaoran Li (not female), Raven (comics), Princess Gwenevere (redirect to the cartoon series) Hay Lin (a character from W.I.T.C.H) Irma Lair (a character from the same series) Orihime Inoue (BLEACH is Shōnen), Cornelia Hale (W.I.T.C.H again), Taranee Cook (dito). I also removed the cat from the Sailor Starlights article since no other character from the Sailor moon series is listed as magical girl but if anyone thinks that this change is a mistake please fell free to readd.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I left most of the anime characters alone since I am not familiar with many of the series they come from but the list may or may not need more pruning.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Syaoran Li in Cardcaptor Sakura, he uses Eastern magic but doesn't do the usual magical girl transformations. It's okay for magical boys to be on the list though. Orihime Inoue in Bleach (manga) does act like a magical girl for one of her early episodes, summoning characters out of her butterfly pins. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the circular argument on magical girls now. As Bewitched inspired Sally the Witch, it also inspired Sabrina, Wizards of Waverley Place, and Charmed. I'm good with limiting it to anime/manga and only citing Western ones that have reviews/interview sources how their show was influenced more by magical girl shows in Japan than witches in general. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Another new discussion in WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

I'd like to request some attention to this discussion in regards to whether the site InsideScanlation.com could be considered a reliable source. AngelFire3423 (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Sailor Senshi article

Despite the discussion at the talk page that the Sailor Senshi photo should be removed, Lego3400 (talk · contribs) has readded the diagram and started a discussion on the talk page. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits are dropping – wonder why?

Edits to this talk page are dropping, indicating reduced activity of this project. They've fallen from 5124 in 2009 to 2968 in 2010 and further to 1932 in 2011. We've lost a lot of high volume editors. That is normal. However, we haven't gotten enough new blood to replace them. One reason for that is, I think, that this project is acting more and more like a gang. I've been watching this for quite some time now. I can't keep quiet any longer.

The most common example of what I mean usually goes as follows:

A project member has a disagreement with a newly registered or IP editor.
After some revert warring, the project member comes here, asking for "more eyes" or something.
The new editor finds him- or herself opposed by a gang.

It usually ends with the editor's talk page being plastered with warnings, the editor blocked and totally fed up with Wikipedia.

You can get around the 3RR rule by calling for backup from other project members, but you're still edit warring, worse, you're gaming the system, using your greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's inner workings to get your way. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to work.

Have a look at WP:BITE, and don't just read the nutshell. We need to be nice to new editors, welcoming them instead of warning them, teaching them how this place works instead of getting them blocked.

I know that WP:DR is a difficult read and seems to expect editors to go to unreasonable length to solve minor content disputes, but that isn't actually true.

Anyway, I'm not just writing this to criticize. I'm offering my help. Please, next time any of you feel the need to call the cavalry, drop me a line on my talk page instead. I'm checking my messages multiple times per day on average. Of course it would be even better if the entire project stopped this behavior at the same time, but I'm not that optimistic. Good raise 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the problem is necessarily new users, since the absence of new users is a general phenomenon across all WMF wikis (check the master statistics sometime - over all wikis, the number of editors editing >5 times a month has increased by just a few hundred or thousand over the last few years, and is below the peak figure!), and the absence of new users wouldn't explain the results of my talk-page experiment, where useful new references are ignored (since if there were plenty of old-line active editors, they would be used).

The problem is the absence of high-volume editors who are anime fans. Why would that be... --Gwern (contribs) 16:34 7 July 2012 (GMT)

Well im here to stay =) I dont see anime or manga going out of popularity anytime soon so there is a chance this lull will pick up again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been curbing my activity a fair bit as I've had RL issues to deal with. I'm still around though, even if I'm not always posting here like I used to. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still around despite my university studies. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe its an issue with new editors, but conflicting old ones such as ourselves.Lucia Black (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Obviously it isn't an issue with new editors, it's an issue without new editors. That's my whole point. Few new editors stick around because they're not treated decently, let alone friendly. But of course this idea is lost to those among you who can't even treat each other respectfully (you know who you are). Good raise 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No! You're wrong! (^_-) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can literally split editors in this conversation that have had conflicted views from one another. Reasons why potentially GA/Featured class articles are at C class....or articles that are POVFORK exist. Everything ends at a stalemate. No one can be bold for the articles that need bold edits.Lucia Black (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Wikipedia's consensus based system means that nobody can always get their way. That's normal. Just walk away, edit another page. Good raise 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Point is we have enough conflicting long term editors (which isnt alot of editors). Its not about getting "our" way but getting the way according to wiki rules. Its not normal if the wikiproject is split in half.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see here? Should I complain about lack of useful feedback on assessments? Territorial editors? Macroned character lists conflicting with English releases? The blanket labels of "needs verification/citation" and "sources" also get frustrating. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember in the end everyone who edits is only human there are going to be arguements but there is also WP:LOVE that is in place as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. But the point is reaching an agreement somewhere along the line. We lack "consensus". The only time we do is when we beat the subject to death.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the general trend has to do with the fact that Wikipedia isn't something new and fascinating any more, so we have far less of a pool to attract people into "that nifty thing you can do" as it were. There's less new editors because there's less people who'd want to be editors that are left and have the potential to be, or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that Wikipedia now has to compete more for the time of editors than a few years back. That only reinforces my original point. Good raise 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree that the main problem is simply interest, or lack thereof. The standards of articles are a lot higher than they were when I joined back in 2006, and a lot more work goes into not only building up an article, but to maintain it. New editors often do not take the time to read up on policy, or even if they do, they're bound not to be as familiar with the various guidelines as we are, so articles lack the proper formatting. Often, people don't know about the dark underbelly of Wikipedia behind the scenes until they actually start editing, and this is often a factor in if the editor will continue editing, so it doesn't have to necessarily involve conflict with other experienced editors, though I admit that's probably a factor. A few months after I joined, I was in my first major conflict over Air and a couple of its branch articles. Some may have been turned away from Wikipedia then, but I simply stopped editing those articles for about 6 months, so I think it also depends on the type of person and if they can deal with the debates, some of which can be incredibly long and tiresome. Still, I'm at least hopeful that new editors will come in to stay, assuming they abide by the rules.--十八 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there def isnt a lack of work that has to be done as I pointed up above with the cleanup project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped editing wikipedia when Wikipedia stopped appreciating my contributions. We're supposed to include everything, but exclusionism is the prevailing wind. There is no point in spending hours writing articles when a cabal of like minded deletionists just AFD your work away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Cleaners". If the given article was removed, its probably for a good reason. I also run into several inclusionist, that hate summarizing information and removing trivia. Unfortunately, its part of Wikipedia's policy. Appreciating your edits also has to be good edits. Try making better articles. Or make a sandbox before making the article to see if its ready. Wikipedia isn't about having the most content.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who hasn't written her first GA or FA. Thanks for trying to paint me as a bad editor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucia was not acting in bad faith with her comment, and it's bad faith to assume she was. However, it's also bad faith to assume you're assuming she was, so I'll just assume the assumption that we're all assuming good faith. That said, it's not Wikipedia's policy to "include everything", because then we wouldn't have the various standards for articles that we do. If an article wasn't notable, it probably would get deleted eventually, so I'm curious as to where this animosity is coming from. Wikipedia's standards are ever rising, and they're much higher than they were when I joined 6 years ago, so it's not as if Wikipedia "stopped appreciating your contribs" but rather Wikipedia just raised the bar, and we should all aspire to do so.--十八 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be a new guideline that is simple and easy to understand that wikipedia isn't about having all content, but the most relevant content supported by reliable sources. Similar to what Wikipedia is "not" it would be "what wikipedia 'is'".Lucia Black (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We already do (in fact, we have two): WP:What Wikipedia is and WP:What Wikipedia Is. More specifically, all the various policies and guidelines are "what Wikipedia is"; problem is, new editors aren't as familiar with these as experienced editors, but you can't really except them to be. I learned from experience, as I'm sure most users have.--十八 21:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the project in general, but my own editing was in decline for several months in late 2009 through about mid-2010, at which point AnmaFinotera retired in the face of escalating on- and off-wiki harassment, an indifferent admin staff, and just general burn out, and that was pretty much it for me as well. I still check my talk page for messages and to read the Signpost, and occasionally look at this talk page and other pages, but I've otherwise moved on to other wikis and have no plans to ever return to anything like my former editing levels here. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Increasing standards can be rather frustrating. I had spent some time improving an article for other Wiki project, and sent it for assessment, only to see it get demoted because it lacked new sections that were required in the past three years. It feels like chasing some balloon in the wind. AngusWOOF (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I really wish this project would return to a golden age. In the past, we've had people like AnmaFinotera, Jinnai, TheFarix and Juhachi making lots of contributions, but now only Juhachi remains. I feel quite disappointed since many articles, even those of popular series, are not that good (for instance, Bakemonogatari is only Start-class, which it doesn't deserve since it's quite popular), and there is a lack of reliable sources for lots of seiyuu, even the more prominent ones. Perhaps the problem is the language barrier. It can be quite time-consuming to search for Japanese article on several anime, manga, light novels etc. which don't get a lot of English coverage. Since anime is only a niche interest in many parts of the world, there are likely only to be a few contributors who are willing to contribute their knowledge, and fewer still can understand Japanese. I commend the likes of Juhachi for improving several articles to GA and near-GA status, but I really wish there were more of them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone tried reaching out the editors who left? Posting on their talk page and @ them, asking them to come back, telling them they are missed and such? It couldn't hurt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We need a new bot

It appears that the bot used to generate the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing stopped working in March 2010 and has been down ever since, is there a bot that can be used to replace the old one and keep this auto-updated per month? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can request a new one at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I got feedback with this: "User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing. The one for Anime and manga is here". How do you plug the info in so it links to the two pages above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Figured out a way, while it would be nice to have things appear here on wikipedia for now I linked the pages to the external link and edited the header. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

terminology

I decided to try to remove as much terminology sections as i possibly can however it has become extremely difficult with new series. For example: Guilty Crown. Then there are other series im well familiar with but having trouble such as Pandora Hearts and Eureka Seven which is already influencing Eureka Seven: AO. It would be a great help if anyone here is more damiliar than i to summarize its content.Lucia Black (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The future of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Hey everyone, there's a BIG problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Basically, we had the same problem before its creation. Little attention was payed to the reliability of sources. Occasionally, there were discussions here on whether certain sources were reliable, but these rarely involved serious scrutiny. Following such discussions, sources were assumed to be reliable and used in articles, which led to failed FACs, FLCs, and the like, effectively wasting editor time and causing frustration. The idea behind this list of sources was to put a stop to that by listing sources, detailing what which source could be used for and rationales for why they could be used in those ways. Needless to say, it didn't work out. Discussions held before adding new sources to the list weren't any more thorough than before and rationales weren't added either. The fact of the matter is that the audience on this talk page, by and large, was never and still isn't qualified to judge the reliability of sources. On top of that, most editors here want to write anime and manga articles and therefore have an interest in anime and manga sources being reliable, which inevitably leads to discussions about such sources being biased in favor of potentially unreliable sources. I thought about going through all of the sources listed, to investigate them and, if possible, write adequate instructions and rationales myself, but considering my lack of knowledge on most of them, that's a task much bigger than I'm willing (or even have the time) to take on alone. I therefore propose that we archive that entire page and start from scratch, demanding that every addition be first discussed at WP:RSN and that those discussions be summarized on the list of sources, explaining how each source can be used and, more importantly, why that is so. This proposal will probably not be too popular, but it's necessary that we do something. In case this proposal isn't rejected, I think we should start with the sources used most often and probably easiest to prove reliable, ANN first of all. Good raise 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the list needs to go, there are archived past discussions reguarding project talk and WP:RS noticeboard talk that helps support the references listed. What I suggest is running the sources through the RS noticeboard and confirm them to be reliable, the ones that are not we can remove. We have a list of sources to check out might as well build on what we have rather than archive all and build from scratch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Give it a few weeks, I can slowly run the sources by the reliable sources noticeboard and remove ones that turn up negative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the severity of the problem. Say you take your article to WP:FAC and a reviewer asks you: "What makes Anime News Network a reliable source?" What is the answer you give that person? In that case, you can't expect the reviewer to read several pages of discussion. You need to provide a rationale backed up by verifiable evidence. Our list of sources doesn't provide those at the moment. What it does currently do is encourage inexperienced editors to use sources many of which probably aren't reliable. And it will take a great deal of work and time to weed out the foul ones. By archiving it somewhere, we'd be able to continue to use it as a resource without it causing damage (in the form of wasted editor time and frustration resulting from failed FACs and such). Anyway, if you want to take on this task, be my guest. Do it your way. Good raise 23:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

anime news network is reliable only by news. The wiki aspects are not. I dont see a big issue really. You just have to look at the sources sometimes. Do you want us to put refs for proof of reliability?Lucia Black (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating that a site is reliable for something isn't enough. You need to explain why it is reliable, and claims made in such an explanation need to be backed up by some sort of evidence. Good raise 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just put certain ones back in the table. Make it easier to find evidence. I dont think the list is doomed though. Previous discussions will most likely bring evidence. It could very well be laziness to not put detail rather than assumption of reliable source. It usually done more stricter when adding a source.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I think it would be more effective to just go through them and list why each is reliable (perhaps include that as part of the entry on the page, for future reference. If we find sources which are not reliable, then we can remove them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, that's already how they are listed. I suggest simply removing the ones which don't have any evidence to back up their claims of reliability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a while back I started fishing bits of evidence out of linked discussions and turned one of the plain lists into a table to accommodate those bits, but they are a long way from outright rationales capable of convincing editors from outside this project of a source's reliability. WikiProjects approving their own sources tends to ring alarm bells with seasoned reviewers (here a recent example). To ensure that a source will be accepted at an FAC or FLC we need either a body of overwhelmingly strong arguments in favor of a source or a discussion at WP:RSN with a clear outcome. Anything less, like a mere project consensus, won't do. Archiving the entire list and starting over would send the clear message that things aren't fine the way they are. Anyway, if you people think the problem can be solved with less aggressive methods, don't let me stand in your way. Good raise 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of archiving the whole list and starting over. My opinion is that the list isn't there primarily to help articles pass FACs, and that the sources listed are very useful in trying to write initial articles. A FAC is going to require especially high quality sources, with especially strong evidence that those sources are reliable. Other sources with some evidence of reliability can still be good enough to be used in articles, even if they would need to be replaced with stronger sources to bring an article up to featured quality. I think it is incumbent on someone trying to bring an article up to featured status to make sure all of the sources are of the highest quality, and have been discussed by a larger audience than just this Wikiproject. However, I don't think that means that sources only discussed by a few people, with some evidence of reliability, have no place on Wikipedia. Basically, I think you are trying to make the list serve a purpose other than what it was intended for, and that there really isn't any problem with the list as it is. That being said, it does sound like a good idea that if a source gets a WP:RSN discussion, the discussion should be summarized and linked on the list. I don't think we need to make the list into a list only of sources that could be used to pass a FAC, but for sources that have been vetted well enough to pass in a FAC, it makes sense to have the discussions linked so that someone else doesn't need to get the same sources vetted again. Calathan (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The standards for featured level content is the same as for every other content. Either a source lives up to the expectations formulated by WP:V and WP:RS or it doesn't. I'm not saying we should remove all uses of every source on this list from all our articles. I'm saying we should stop encouraging their use until we can demonstrate clearly that they meet the wider community's expectations. Good raise 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I quite frankly think that everything you just wrote is wrong. A source can live up to the expectations formulated by WP:V and WP:RS while still being of insufficient quality for use in a featured article. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria specifically calls for "high-quality" reliable sources. My understanding is that the qualifier "high-quality" is in place to indicate that the sources are not merely reliable, but are among the best sources covering the subject. However, that in no way means that sources which aren't the best aren't reliable. The way I see it, sources could be grouped into three rough categories - those that are unreliable (e.g. a blog post by a random person), those that are reliable but not high quality (e.g. a blog post by an expert, a review from a site with some editorial control but not among the most recognized sites in the industry), and those that are reliable and high quality (e.g. a review from a professional reviewer in a publication with a professional editorial staff and a high degree of recognition by the industry). I think we as a group, and any experienced editor of Wikipedia in general, is qualified to make a decision on whether a source is reliable or not, and there is no reason to go to WP:RSN unless there is disagreement among editors, or unless you want a broader discussion just to have something to refer to in a FAC for people who may not be familiar with the source. Requiring that all sources be vetted at WP:RSN seems completely unnecessary to me, and extremely onerous for anyone trying to write article content that is not yet up to a featured standard. I think our list of sources should include anything we think is reliable, that we are a perfectly fine group to judge reliability (despite not being a broad enough sampling of Wikipedia editors to vet something for featured status), and that providing a list of all the sources we think are reliable is extremely useful to editors, whether or not all of those sources would be appropriate to use in a featured article. Calathan (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It also depends on the person reviewing the sources over at the reliable sources noticeboard for example the first source listed: Active Anime I tried getting an opinion on, I used Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle as an example when it came t oreception as it is rated as a Good article here is the response I got: "No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Calathan: Consider this: Source A deals with subjects X and Y, is reliable for claims of fact about them per WP:V and WP:RS, and is used in featured articles about both subjects. Then source B, which is of much "higher quality" than A, but deals only with subject Y, is published. The article on Y then may be considered failing featured article criterion 3c for not using the best available literature, but that doesn't affect the reliability of source A. The point is, being a "high-quality" source in the sense of FA criterion 3c is subject specific. That means sources can't be divided in just those three groups (unreliable, low-quality reliable and high-quality reliable), because the same sources would end up in differing groups depending on what article we want to use them in. The only standard by which listing sources on a project page makes sense is plain reliability (and even there we have to differentiate for what a particular source can be used). Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources should contain rationales capable of convincing editors from outside of this project that a source is reliable, convincing them that a source is among the best in a subject area is a whole different story. Good raise 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that fitting sources into three categories is an oversimplification, but I think in many cases some sources are obviously of better quality than others. Anyway, I think the heart of our disagreement is that to me it seems to me like you want something that you can refer to in a FAC discussion, but I don't think this list was intended to serve such a purpose. Instead, I think the main purpose of the list is to provide a group of sources that we have considered and believe to be reliable, so that people interested in writing articles about anime and manga have a list of sources they can check for information on the subject they want to write about. If you see things being included on WP:A&M/RS that you think aren't reliable, then by all means remove them (or bring them up for further discussion). Also, if detailed reasoning on why a source is reliable has been presented elsewhere and discussed with a wider group, it certainly makes sense to include that information in the list. However, I think removing things from the list just because more detailed discussions have not yet occured would be doing a disservice to people who just want a list of sources to check for information to use when writing articles. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

why can't low quality sources be used in FAs and GAs?Lucia Black (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My... That's quite some serious & lengthly discussion happening here...
Looking for a godlike authority pointy at ANN saying this is a reliable source is not foreseeable...Instead it's more realistic to go for clues hunting proving that ANN is acknowledged as "trustworthy, respectable, & weight carrying website" within the field of anime/manga. No, i'm done with argumentation and blues links spamming like i used in the good old time. However for ANN, just point to the list of guest of their podcast to point out that much anyone who matter in anime/manga where guessed and more than once for some of them or to their anime streaming page as no serious anime companies would likely trust any random websites to host official streaming of their anime series. I won't talk about neutrality of ANN because it's another matter altogether. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Calathan: The page becoming a tool for use in FAC discussions isn't my goal, it's a byproduct of my goal. If we can't convince editors from outside of our project that a source is reliable then we haven't established that it is reliable. Actually, I wouldn't object to having a list of sources for the purpose you name, but then we should make it much more clear that that is what it is. First of all, it shouldn't be called "online reliable sources" but "online resources". Secondly, we should rewrite the lead to say something along the lines of "This is a list of websites with anime and manga related information. We believe they qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards, but we don't really know, because instead of using our brains and looking at verifiable evidence, we just went with our gut feeling. We don't really care anyway, because we just want to write some articles, whether or not the rest of the community thinks they're worth the hard drive space they occupy." I'm serious. If that's the kind of list you want then that's fine with me. Just stop giving inexperienced editors the impression that those sources won't be frowned upon when they bring them to venues where source quality isn't a secondary concern.

In reply to Lucia Black: Reliable sources can be used in all articles. However, when there is multiple reliable sources available, WP:WIAFA requires featured articles to use "high-quality" sources rather than "low-quality" sources. Good raise 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I find your reply insulting. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it certainly came off that way to me. You've basically suggested that all our opinions don't matter, that we're a bunch of idiots that can't analyze sources ourselves, and that thinking we can is just stupid. Everything that is on the list of reliable sources is there because people from this wikiproject considered the evidence for them being reliable. We have used our brains to consider these sources. That's why they are on the list. The discussions linked from the list aren't all of us just spouting off nonsense, but actual consideration of the merits of the sources. It is true that we might need to present more detailed information to explain to someone unfamiliar with anime and manga why the sources are reliable. That doesn't mean our judgement of them is wrong or insufficient. And again, if you think there are sources on the list that are actually not reliable, you should remove them or start new discussions about them. Calathan (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Then there isnt really a huge issue....unless we labeled the source to low and high.Lucia Black (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Calathan: Do you find insulting what I said or only what you think I meant to imply? It is my opinion that this wikiproject on average accepts sources on manga and anime related subjects as reliable based on less verifiable evidence (in terms of quantity and strength) than editors at other venues (such as FAC or RSN) would demand. If it were otherwise, it would be easy to summarize past project discussions into rationales capable of convincing such editors of the reliability of our sources. Do you believe that to be possible for the majority of entries in our list of online sources?

In reply to Lucia Black: There isn't an issue at all. We don't need to take the featured article criteria into account when examining sources for reliability. Good raise 04:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I dispute your premise that we are less able to judge anime and manga sources than other people. It is possible that we have done a bad job in the past. However, looking at the list myself, I only see a few sources that I think might not be reliable. In particul I would question Active Anime and THEM Anime Reviews, though I think multiple articles have been promoted to featured status while citing THEM Anime (e.g. Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble). Most of the others look like either professional publications or websites with editorial review of content, or things published by experts in the field. Active Anime happens to be at WP:RSN right now, by the way, so the entry on the list that I think is most dubious is already being discussed. Rather than just saying that the list is bad in general, can you point out some specific sources listed there that you think aren't reliable? Calathan (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I welcome your disputing my premise. Prove me wrong! I don't think that those sources are unreliable or (in case of reviews) shouldn't be given weight, I'm merely assuming that they aren't reliable and shouldn't be given weight because the list doesn't provide me with sufficient verifiable evidence to convince me otherwise. In my opinion, recommending one unreliable source causes more damage than not recommending ten reliable sources. That's why I suggested archiving the entire page. But you want examples? Take the first four on the list. Why should we use those? Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that I'm not convinced that we should, and in my eyes that's almost as bad. Good raise 06:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you should probably present evidence yourself when you are suggesting we are doing a bad job of something and all our past work should be thrown out. But looking at the first four sources, as I already mentioned, I don't really think Active Anime is reliable. There have been two WP:RSN discussions on it (counting the one on the page right now), and in neither has any evidence been presented that makes me think it is reliable. But I think it is the exception to the list, and most of them are reliable. For Ain't it Cool News, it is a website run but a professional film critic (Harry Knowles), and is used as a source in hundreds of articles outside this wikiproject (including featured articles like Transformers (film)). For AnimecCons.com, that was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#AnimeCons.com where I explained that I think their some of their news content is reliable, being written by an expert, but the database is not. I think our list page needs to be updated to explain that. Animefringe was a magazine with an editorial staff, so it would meet the reliability guidelines. Calathan (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you want? How am I supposed to show that a source is unreliable? You might as well ask me to prove the nonexistence of green-blooded purple unicorns. Sources, especially self-published ones, have to be considered unreliable until a cogent argument for their reliability is made. But it seems we're talking past each other on various points here. I'm not saying the page should be "thrown out", just that we should stop encouraging use of the sources until we come up with solid arguments for their use. And again, I'm not saying those sources are unreliable or shouldn't be used. I'm saying there's no convincing arguments made for their use. That AnimeCons.com thread is a good example of this. The few bits of evidence provided add up neither to establish a reputation of accuracy per WP:USEBYOTHERS, nor to an expert exemption for Patrick Delahanty per WP:SPS. Good raise 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I think your statements are ridiculous. There are numerous discussions linked from the list explaining why sources are reliable. You are just ignoring all those discussions for reasons that are completely inexplicable to me. You say we haven't presented evidence when instead we have presented tons of evidence. Yes, there are some things on the list with no evidence provided, and yes there are a couple things on the list that should be removed. That doesn't mean there is "a BIG problem" with the list, or that we should stop telling people to use all the sources that we have discussed. Simply filling in reasons for reliablity for those sources without an explanation of their reliability, and removing any entries where we cannot come up with an explanation, would fix the list. If you want to convince me that the list is bad, please go through each linked discussion and explain why the points raised do not meet the requirements of WP:V. If you can show me that our discussions came to the wrong conclusion in not just one or two cases, but most cases, then I will agree with you that the list should be started over from scratch. However, until you actually point out what you think is wrong with all the discussions that have taken place, I'm going to keep thinking your statements make no sense. Also, about AnimeCons.com, I still think the site founder qualifies as an expert on anime conventions, having been published (in voice form) by other sources which treated him as an expert (i.e. I think he meets WP:SPS). However, that is really a moot point as I think the portion of the site being used on Wikipedia is the portion I think is unreliable. I would support just removing AnimeCons.com from the list if you want to remove it. Again though, a few mistakes on the list doesn't mean the whole list is bad or that all our discussions were misguided. Calathan (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This exchange between us is going nowhere because you keep reading things into my words that aren't there and because we disagree on one key point. You seem to think that presenting a list of sources as being reliable when there's in fact unreliable ones in there is still beneficial to the project, while I hold the opposite to be true and think that we can have the same positive effects currently provided by our list of "reliable" online sources by presenting those sources as only possibly reliable and only labeling sources as actually reliable when we've made certain of that. Enacting my proposal would put a stop to endorsement of unreliable sources while having no practical downside. Good raise 16:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I don't think I was reading anything into your statements that isn't actually there, or at least not the things you seem to think I was reading into them. I had assumed that when you linked to MFD with the words "thrown out", you knew I didn't think you wanted to MFD the page, but were twisting my words in order to make my position seem incorrect. However, your most recent post has made me think you honestly thought I thought you wanted to MFD the page. I apologize for assuming your statement was a debating technique and not a literal statement of what you thought I believed. When I referred to "throwing out" the list, I was referring to your statement that we should "archive that entire page and start from scratch". I never thought that you were suggesting the list be deleted outright. I do agree that the key point we disagree on is whether the list is beneficial or harmful in its current state. One thing I would support is reorganizing the list to place the sources the already have evidence of reliability in a section at the top, labeled as reliable sources, and the ones that don't yet have evidence of reliability presented in a lower section labeled as possibly reliable sources that need more discussion. I also want to mention that my personal experience with WP:RSN is that discussions there do not attract much attention, with usually only one or two people commenting on a source, and with the comments generally not having much thought behind them. For instance, the current discussion on Active Anime has only attracted comments from one person, who I personally think has come to the wrong conclusion (he thinks the source is reliable but the reviews have no weight behind them, while I think the source just isn't reliable). As another example, for the discussion on AnimeCons.com in which I participated, only one person besides me commented (other than the person who initially asked about the source), I think he failed to assess whether the founder of the site was an expert, and the discussion ended unclearly as I couldn't tell if I had convinced him of my position or not. I really don't think WP:RSN does any better a job assessing sources than we do here, especially considering that we might have more knowledge on why a source should be considered reliable than someone unfamiliar with the subject. I also don't think referring to a WP:RSN discussion where one person commented will do anything to help convince people at a FAC that a source is reliable (or at least not more so than a discussion here). I think it would be a fine idea to have more discussions here about any of the sources on the list that you or anyone else thinks don't have enough evidence of reliability presented yet. I don't, however, think that WP:RSN is a better place to have those discussions, and I certainly don't think that having new discussions at WP:RSN for things that already been discussed enough here would improve the list. Calathan (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now we agree on what we disagree. That's progress I suppose. Sure, threads at RSN don't always attract an immense amount of attention, but at least there's people with clue running around there, like that editor who expertly commented on Active Anime. User:Goodraise/Reviews as sources might be able to help you understand what that editor meant. Good raise 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I understood exactly what that editor meant. While I agree with his assessment in his second comment, I think his first comment is clearly off. He said that the site seems to have a minimal fact checking process, something I see absolutely no evidence of. The Active Anime page he referred to doesn't state that any of the people involved work as an editor or check each other's facts. Maybe they do and maybe they don't but I have no way to tell. Of course the reviews could be used as a source on the opinions of the people writing them, but someone asking if a source is reliable at WP:RSN obviously isn't asking if it is reliable in that sense, and I don't think this person's initial reply was intended to mean it would only be reliable in that sense. Instead, I think he is suggesting that the site might be reliable for factual information on the topics they are covering, something I would say is not true. Anyway, if you think we all don't have a clue, why are you even here? And if you aren't willing to treat the editors here with respect, why should we care about anything you say? Calathan (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. You apparently aren't as clueless as your last comment made me think you were. My apologies. That still doesn't change my opinion that RSN is a better place for this type of discussion than this talk page. If you think saying so is disrespectful, then I can't really help it. If, on the other hand, you feel insulted, this time around, by my obviously exaggerated suggestion that literally nobody around here has any clue whatsoever, then I can only conclude that you're actively trying to take offense. In any case, I don't see this exchange leading to any useful results anymore. If you disagree with anything that editor said about Active Anime, then say so at that RSN thread or just ask for clarification. I can't speak on his or her behalf. Shall we leave it at that? Good raise 15:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)