Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 54

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 52

→

Italics when moved issue

Whenever an article has ben moved, it seems to be in all italics. I find it distracting and slightly confusing to put the whole title in italics rather than just the main subject. Is there a way to undo the entire italics and just put utalics on the main subject. For example "List of (subject) episodes/chapters/", (subject) would be in italics. This would be very helpful for list articles.Lucia Black (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

anyone? I feel this auto-italics is a mistake.Lucia Black (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Can you give an example? Good raise 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

List of .hack//Sign Original Soundtracks was originally named .hack//Sign Original Soundtracks. When i moved it (or in easier terms, renamed) the entire title got put in italics. It should look like "List of .hack//Sign original soundtracks" not "List of .hack//Sign original soundtracks".(but looking at it now original soundtrack should be in miniscules)Lucia Black (talk)

Easily fixed. Good raise 05:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That was just one example. Everytime any article is renamed from anime or manga, it gets ialicized automatically. That should be removed.Lucia Black (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Give me more examples then. Good raise 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Lucia: it has nothing to do with the moving process. It's the templates that are on the page; in this case, the album templates, by default, italicize article titles. The same thing applies to the video game template, film template, animanga template, etc.--十八 07:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@goodraise: all of the list articles that are list articles or have disambiguation. This is still an issue regardless if it part of the moving process juhhachi.Lucia Black (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Goodraise showed you how to alter the titles of such articles with a simple template, {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, and the italicizing of article titles via the use of the infoboxes I mentioned was instituted based on consensus.--十八 23:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

no mountain, no molehills. Just you missed the point. I want to permanently remove the auto ialics. Easy fix for me, others may not know and i cant look for every single article that makes this mistake. Lucia Black (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it was decided by consensus that this would happen a while back, maybe a year or so. There was a big discussion on it too, so it's unlikely that it'll go back to how it used to be. Besides, it's not that big of a deal. So what if the whole article title is italicized? Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and most people simply don't care. If you want, commission someone to write a bot to fix it.--十八 03:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where that discussion took place? Good raise 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i am not familiar with this discussion. If it was so big, then maybe you could let us know why it was done in favor of this change? There might not be no deadline. But that doesn't mean we can't make things easier for everyone else.Lucia Black (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A rather non conclusive ending to the discussion shown....Makes me worried its end was misinterpretted.Lucia Black (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's the extended discussion, which ruled in favor of italics. Feel free to bring up another discussion if you feel it wasn't conclusive, but since it's already been used for about 2 years now, it's unlikely to go back to how it was.--十八 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

why?Lucia Black (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just what experience tells me.--十八 05:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it does more harm then good. And its not useful whatsoever. Its practically useless. I say we can easily get new consensus. Lucia Black (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tweeny Witches

Seeing I am unfamilar with images reguarding series is there anyone who can find a free use image for the series? I feel that a picture or two will help the article alot =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't work with images much, I wouldn't expect there to be a free use image for most anime series. I think most images used in anime and manga articles are non-free images used with a fair use rationale. Calathan (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well are there images that can be used that have the non-free use but with a fair use rationale? Ive uploaded images before but only ones I knew were public domain - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use is a bit tricky. The first thing you should do is to read WP:FUR. Good raise 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject.. is there any reason for the article being titled as it is? The article says "The anime was licensed by AnimeWorks (Later called Media Blasters) under the English name: The Adventures of Tweeny Witches", however.. it wasn't. As the DVDs linked in that same sentence attest, it was marketed as just "Tweeny Witches", which had indeed been its English name even before it was licensed (the now dead official Japanese site was tweeny-witches.com for example.) Shiroi Hane (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Golden Boy

Can I have some comments on the appropriateness of a non-free image at Talk:Golden Boy (manga)#Toilet image? Thanks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FFD is the place to go for this kind of thing. Good raise 01:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion takes place here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:NFCR works too. Commented there. Good raise 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

AnimeNation article could use some work

I noticed the AnimeNation article was speedy deleted a few days ago, but I was able to get it undeleted by pointing out references that could be used to show that the company is notable. I've now added those references to the article, but have mainly used them to cite a few statements already in the article. I think the references could probably be used to add a lot more information to the article (particularly the one from the St. Petersburg Times), but I'm not sure if I will have time to work much on the article any time soon. Even though I use Wikipedia a lot, I don't really do much editing of articles, and if I do have time I already have another project to work on (User:Calathan/Devadasy). I just thought I would mention the AnimeNation article here in case anyone is interested in adding more information to it. The sources I found are all now linked in the article. Calathan (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Films in episode lists

I'm currently in this dispute with Wonchop on whether to include the K-On! film in the episode list, and I thought this might have wider implications for the future of episode lists in cases like these. My argument is that films should not be included as that would be outside the scope of an "episode list", as a film is not an episode and shouldn't be treated as such. As a theatrical film, it shouldn't get more than a single line reference in the lead, and besides, it's better off in it's own article, something I suggested to Wonchop.--十八 22:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? Good raise 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We had had a short revert session on the episode list, and I could guess the outcome of a separate talk page discussion as a stalemate, so since I thought it had wider implications for Wikipedia, I cut out the middle man and started the discussion here. In all honesty, I've seen this happen in episode lists before, but never brought it up before. It's generally pretty rare, but it's still something worth discussing with the project as a whole.--十八 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i vote for not having films in episode lists.Lucia Black (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very much on a per-case basis. For example, series like Dragon Ball, Naruto, Bleach and Haruhi Suzumiya, which are very popular and have a large franchise range would have movies as their own seperate articles. However, a lot of movies of anime series, such as Ojamajo Doremi, Pretty Cure and indeed K-On!, as well as movies that are largely compilations of its television counterpart, are more or less expanded parts of the animated part of their respective franchises and generally don't have much noticeability for their own articles. It's more or less the same with anime video games, there needs to be a fair amount of noticeability for a game to receive a seperate article from its manga article (eg. Dragon Ball Z Budokai deserves its own article, the board game spinoff of Powerpuff Girls Z doesn't. In the specific case, there's not really that much to talk about the K-On! movie (since it's more or less 'Cute girls doing cute things: the movie') and an individual article based on that would just be a stump, since there wouldn't be much else to add that isn't already explained on the manga's article. It just seems like a waste to just create new articles instead of keeping it organised. (Don't get me started on the guy who argued against my edits to simplify the List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes and impulsively made an additional article for the anime adaptation which wasn't really needed.) Wonchop (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If a decent separate article can be written about the film, it should be, eventually at least. Until then, the film should be discussed in the main article of the franchise. Good raise 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just seems like people are against it just for the pure technicality of it. I mean, really, what's the actual harm of having a summary of a film, which spawned from an anime, in that anime's episode list? Leaving the summary out altogether seems to be a bit inconvenient for those who are able to read about the rest of the animated franchise in one place. Wonchop (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is its not an episode. Its a film. Whether they share similar plot or not. Not an episode, so it shouldnt go in the list of episodes. Plain and simple. Whats the harm in putting a film summary in a list of episodes? The answer is in the question.Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is "Star Wars Episode IV" a film or an episode? Just saying. Would it help to rename the article List of instalments in the chronology of the animated adaptation of the K-on! manga for the sake of one part of the story that doesn't strictly fit into your definition of "episode"? Shiroi Hane (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Shiroi hane i feel the example is so easily counterable that even you see the flaw. This is list of tv episodes. Not film episodes rnepisodes of any kind and even then its riddiculous to name such an article. Tv episodes is the main part. The films are not labeled as episodes so therefore do jot fit. Star wars adapted the episode namine when episode 1 came out.Lucia Black (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a List of K-On! episodes - the word "TV" is not in the title. The "first" Star Wars film always opened with "Episode IV: A New Hope", long before the prequels were made. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

not true. First star wars was known simply as star wars. The films were not numbered until episode I. Also....there is no indication that the films are episodes and even then its separate from the tv series. Why argue sonething we both know isnt going to work.Lucia Black (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that even though I would not consider a film to be an episode, I think they should be included in episode lists. Having all the parts of an anime franchise listed on one page seems like the most simple and most useful way to organize the information. Including the films in the episode list increases the utility of the page, and I don't see a good reason not to include them. While the page could be given a name like "list of <show> episodes and films", it seems unnecessary to me to go with the longer, more cumbersome name. I think including some information on the films in the episode list doesn't really seem out of place, even if the list is named "list of episodes". I do think most theatrical films will have enough individual notability for their own pages, so the content in the episode list should just be something along the lines of the title of the film and its release date, with a wikilink to the film's article. For an example of how I think films should be handled in episode lists, see List of Bleach episodes (which is currently a featured list). Calathan (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Theres no point for that kind of organization. Thats what the main article is for. Yoyr thunking too in universe if your alk focused on pmot related aspects.Lucia Black (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you are saying (I'm not a stickler for spelling, but please try to make sure what you wrote is understandable before posting). Anyway, I'm not thinking at all in terms of plot or anything in universe, and I don't understand why you would think that or how anything I wrote even suggests that at all. I'm suggesting what I think to be the best way to organize the information so that it is easy for readers to find the information they want. I think the films should be mentioned in prose in the main article and in list format in the episode list article. I think that will make the information easiest to navigate and understand. Again, I think the actual description of the films should generally be in their own artile, assuming that the films are notable enough for individual articles. In that case, the prose in the main article would just be a short summary of what is in the larger article. In the event that a film isn't notable enough for its own article, more detailed description on the film could go in a section of the main article, and the list could link back to that section. Looking at the K-On! articles, it looks like the release and box office information on the film is in the main article and the plot summary of the film is in the episode list. I think that is a bad way to organize the information, and that there should be a single place where all that information is available. However, that doesn't mean that the film should be removed from the episode list entirely. Instead, I think the best way to organize the information would be to move the plot summary to the main K-On! article, leave the title and release dates on the episode list, and link from the title in the episode list to the section on the film in the main article. That way, someone viewing the episode list can easily see that there was a film and when it was released in relation to the TV episodes, but all the infromation on the film will be in one place, and the text won't be cluttering up the episode list with unnecessary prose that fits better in a non-list article. Calathan (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

list of episodes does not need to show the existence of a film. The article is perfectly organized and easy to manuever. There is no need to make it convinient for the sake of convinience. For those whom want to know a film exist they can look in the main article. For example: thee is list of blood+chapters and list of blood+ light novels. I believe the inclusion of films for list of episodes. Its not necesary what so ever and does not help the list aticle in anyway.Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are focusing too much on making the content of the page match the current name of the page, and not focusing on making the best encyclopedia pages we can. It seems the only reason you don't want the film on the page is because the page is titled "list of K-On! episodes". Ask yourself which is the better encyclopedia page, a list of only the episodes or a list of all portions of the anime. Whichever would be more useful is the one we should have, and we can think of how to title it afterwards. Personally I thnk a list of all parts of the anime is more useful, so I think that is what we should go with. Calathan (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

but thats the least subjective way to approach it. And best article? I believe focused on list of episodes is split for a reason and that is because its too long for the main article. Its a spin off and mainly focuses on info on the episodes. Like i said, adding films wont help make it any better. I only see it as a list of episodes and nothing more. And why should i or anyone else see it for hat it actually is?Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(General reply to Calathan) While it might make more sense to give it a separate section in the Bleach episode list, as there are multiple films, K-On! has but one film. Therefore, an entire section for a single listing would be excessive in my opinion, and the information on it's release date in relation to the 2 TV series can be (and already is) listed in the lead at the end of the second paragraph. I would agree that the plot info does not belong in the episode list and could go either in the main article or it's separate article if someone created it.--十八 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the K-On! film from the list because there is only one seems reasonable to me. Personally I would include it in the list, but it isn't necessary. For Bleach I feel more strongly that having the films in a list is useful, and that the best place for that list is on the episode list page. At the very least, I think we need to avoid providing incorrect information by excluding films, which List of Oh My Goddess! episodes currently does (the lead starts by saying there were five anime adaptations between 1993 and 2007, when in fact there were six if you include the film). Calathan (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

5 adaptations? That could be wrong altogether if its the same series but separate seasons. However i still dont feel filns are that necessary. When you see why list of episodes are done in the beginning you will see why its unnecesary to have films. The only exception i believe is List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes where the films ae actually numbered as episodes of the tv series. There is no room for it on the main article thats why i believe these spin off articles are done. It seems out of place to put films as episodes. I think navigation between episodes is necesary because its an incredibly long and are all part of the same series. Films are usually not part of a season or seasons. I dont believe they are meant to help navigate through the entire franchise. Thats what the main article is for whether you believe its suficient. Which leads to another point: unnecessary redundancy.Lucia Black (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As it is a full-fledged film and not just an OVA special episode, perhaps it's time to create an entry, K-On the Movie with the information supporting it like the box office figures. Then it can be casually mentioned in the episodes list? It seems to work with Heaven's Lost Property the Movie: The Angeloid of Clockwork. Navigating redundant lists of episodes plus specials and movies can be rather frustrating, although it can help to have a list of anime/film media like a discography/videography would be for music artists. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point. Unnecesary and redundant and overall not knowing what the list article is for.Lucia Black (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well sometimes a TV series might contain a trailer for the movie, hence the mention in the series section, otherwise I agree that continuity can be outlined in the main article. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

VOTOMS: The Pailsen Files

I've just started drafting an article of the series at my userspace using the Mellowlink article as template and the japanese version as guide. I'll let you know if I need any help. Thanks --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's completed. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it has alot of issues with it. It wouldve been best to ask someone first if it was ready then to leaving it to your own judgement. It needs sources. And could be better organized. I'll look into it and see what i can do.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Seiyuu vs voice actor

Is there any compelling reason to use the Japanese term seiyuu in sentences like, “The character’s seiyuu is … and the English voice actor is …”? Wouldn’t it work better to just use English? —Frungi (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked this because I noticed this practice in one article about an anime character, and I thought it would be better to ask here than on that article’s talk page. Since there was no answer so far, and I can’t find anything one way or the other about the word in the MOS or this wikiproject, I rewrote the sentence in English. —Frungi (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I think we should use "voice actor" rather than "seiyuu" as it would work better in English. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That was my thought as well, but is there a policy or MOS entry or something somewhere that I overlooked? I recall arguments some years ago that “seiyuu” was as acceptable as “anime” and “manga” and “otaku” in anime-related articles, but I haven’t followed it since then. —Frungi (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles. AngusWOOF (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I can’t find anything there (or in English dictionaries) supporting “seiyuu” (or “manga-ka”, for that matter, which I recall similar arguments for), so I guess it’s settled. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As "voice actor" is the very common English-language term used even in magazines like Otaku USA, I think we should be using that pretty much exclusively. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fairy Tail: splits

Hello. I have nominated five articles to be split from List of Fairy Tail characters. I think this split may be non-controversial, and in case the merge is done, due to the series' large fanbase, there could be much resistance soon after. I hope to gain a strong consensus on this issue. With that said, please consider participating in this discussion. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Naruto the Movie: Road to Ninja

Yahoo conducted an interview with Kishimoto and Asian Kung Fu Generation regarding their work in the Naruto the Movie: Road to Ninja, but sadly it's in Japanese. Could someone with knowledge regarding the language check it? It looks like it could help to expand the article.

A shorter article by Mantan Web gives similar comments. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing cosplay photos

I have uploaded about 500 photos to the new category commons:Category:Cosplay at Otakon. Unfortunately I don't have time to categorize all of them by cosplay of what category, and frankly, I don't recognize about 75% of them anyway. I tried my best to categorize those I recognized, but I'd think some members here would enjoy helping with that :) I think we will also need to create a number of new categories (Fairy Tail, Avatar, Legend of Korra)... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup?

I am considering a local WP:ANIME WikiCup. There is another precedent of a local WikiCup at WT:VG#WP:VG article competition?, but I'm thinking about doing the cup for this WikiProject. I'm thinking that us project members could make some sort of awards for participation and for the person who finishes in first place. With an attachment to achievements and trophies in anime culture so far, I think this might be a really positive way to encourage editors to get involved in anime article creation. Any comments or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We did something similar back in 2008, but that was when we had more active members. Going by the comments and general apathy of the above thread, I doubt there's going to be very many who'd be interested in something like this. WP:VG has more active members, and more members liable to contribute, since animanga in general is pretty niche.--十八 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

simpler scope

I think we should rewrite what we cover on the main wikiproject page. The way we have it now seems too much of a checklist. Some are also really obvious. I was thinking we can work together to write a simpler and less limiting scope. For one, i suggest not mention each piece of media adaptation and just say we cover all adaptations relating to anime or manga.Lucia Black (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Article re-write for Hotarubi no Mori e -- Japanese help wanted

I'm a bit of a WikiDragon and I normally write about lemurs. I love taking underdeveloped articles and completely revamping them, then running them through GAN and FAC. Occasionally, I'll write articles about random interests (outside of lemurs). The anime Hotarubi no Mori e really touched me the other night, and given that it's just a stub, I'm going to work on the article for the anime/manga tonight and over the next few days. I plan to model the article after some of this project's existing FA content. However, I do not speak or read Japanese, so I will need help tracking down Japanese sources/reviews and translating them for inclusion in the article. (I should also note that I'm not as familiar with how WP:RS applies outside of the academic material I usually write, so this will be a learning experience for me.) I was wondering if there is a dedicated project member or two who might be willing to help me out. If so, please post below and start providing Japanese links/translations on the article's talk page. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have helped so far. The re-write is 90% done (just published), and I will finish the rest up after I sleep. There are some things I could use help/opinions on, which can be found under this topic on the article's talk page. Re-evaluation, feedback, copyedits, and other help would be greatly appreciated. – Maky ^« talk » 11:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuf International

It looks like a copy and paste move was done on The Right Stuf International in July. (See diffs 1 and 2) Right Stuf, Inc. was prodded by this edit and I have deprodded it. If someone wants to delete this article they should note this AfD. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Hello, all. I'm seeking input from those that know. Please see Sugimon and Ashley Renee Bird. I have deleted one version of one these articles previously due ro the lack of an assertion of significance. The article creator has made several attempts at these articles none of which offered the requisite credible assertion. With their most recent creations they have finally inserted the phrase "the main protagonist of the Digimon Tamers " into one and "a viral raptor-like Monkey Digimon " into the other which negates the A7 criterion. My question is, are these articles hoaxes or not? Any help would be appreciated. Tiderolls 18:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the series. That said, the content of User:12ashley leads me to suspect the characters to be of the editor's own creation. It's unlikely for a main character of the series not to be listed at Digimon Tamers#Characters or List of Digimon Tamers characters, but not to jump to conclusions, I'll investigate some more. Neither character is mentioned at the Digimon Wikia, however, an article called Ashley Bird has been deleted there today with the comment "Fan pages must have 'Fan:' at the start of the title." Also, neither character is mentioned at ANN and Guilmon gives 100 times more Google hits than Sugimon. So, unless there's a massive conspiracy at work trying to keep the existence of these characters a secret, I'd say they are fan fiction. I wouldn't use the word hoax, because I don't think it's the editor's intention to harm the encyclopedia, but for the sake of speedy deletion, that's what these seem to be. Good raise 19:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, Goodraise. I agree, I should've used a more precise term than "hoax". Tiderolls 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Update. Both articles have now been speedily deleted. If anyone has insight to share regarding fan fiction in general, or how it impacts Wikipedia's articles specifically, please leave messages on my user talk. God knows, I need the instruction. Thanks Tiderolls 21:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

need help: does anybody have a book "The Illusion of Life 2: More Essays on Animation" ?

does anybody have a book "The Illusion of Life 2: More Essays on Animation" ? (Idot (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

No-importance

Please see the discussion here for regarding the use of No-importance or not, on the relevance of "No" as an importance criteria. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Fairy Tail manga volumes peer review

Hi. There is a peer review on List of Fairy Tail manga volumes so we can get the article up to Featured List status. The peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Fairy Tail manga volumes/archive1. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Rurouni Kenshin characters clean up

It's been about three years since the article List of Rurouni Kenshin characters has been containing unneeded information such as minor characters, plot details, indivdual images and non-formatted references. I would like to start to help cleaning up the list but I would like other editors opinions' regarding what sections need to be removed. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend removing Antagonists as a category and merging the list with the major character groups like with List of One Piece characters and List of Fairy Tail characters since there are a few characters (Saito, Aoshi) that flop between antagonist and ally. Those articles have decent paragraphs for the various factions. Any one-off characters should be removed. The stars in the OVAs can stay. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke

There is an important discussion on how we should get the Princess Mononoke article up to GA status at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?, as I am doing a major revamp of the article. Comments, thoughts, ideas and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

More collaborations?

Thanks again to those who helped me with Hotarubi no Mori e. I have found someone on a fan site to help me translate the Japanese material, and I hope to be moving forward with the finishing touches in the coming weeks. (But if anyone still wants to help translate, please let me know.) Otherwise, this has been a fairly fun experience.

I would like to offer the opportunity for further collaborations. The anime/mangas that I'm up for working on (in order of preference) include:

Mushishi – my all-time favorite anime series
Children Who Chase Lost Voices – (I own the special edition BD box set, with a booklet on production and other facts... but it needs translation.
Katanagatari
Kemono no Sōja
Kino's Journey
Wolf's Rain
5 Centimeters Per Second
The Twelve Kingdoms

I am willing to write the bulk of each article and get them through GAN & FAC if I can at least get help with the plot summary as well as finding and translating Japanese sources. Where applicable, I do not own the manga, so I will need help with that, too.

If any of these projects interest you, you may either reply here or contact me on my talk page whenever its convenient for you. – Maky ^« talk » 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

Lately, I have been thinking about getting Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) to GA/FA status. As such, I've started a discussion here. The objective is to get the article up to TFA on March 4, 2014 (which is the film's 30th anniversary). Input, comments and suggestions from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Romatization check

Can someone check the romanization and translation of GD Leen (ガデュリン)? Google Translator is spitting out garbage for the romanization and is equally useless for a close translation. —Farix (t | c) 12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Take the following with a lot of salt, because I couldn't even order an okonomiyaki delivery in Japanese. ~~"ガデュリン" should probably be "ガデユリン" (Gadeyurin).~~ Katakana is usually used for foreign words, words of foreign origin, or made up words meant to appear to be foreign or of foreign origin. As I understand it, this is the name of the planet the protagonist lands on, making it a proper noun. I would therefore romanize it as "Gadeyurin", assuming this is the correct Hepburn romanization as mandated by WP:MOS-JA. Other romanizations might be acceptable. For example "GD Leen" would be acceptable if that character sequence (in Latin letters) appears anywhere in the manga. The same goes for "Gdleen". As for translating it, that might prove difficult without knowing the origin language the word. Even knowing what (possibly fictional) language the word comes from, it might not have a meaning in that language beyond being the name of that planet. It may even have had a meaning in the (again, possibly fictional) past and eventually lost it. So trying to come up with a translation is probably a pointless endeavor. Good raise 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Edited. Good raise 22:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The direct romanisation is Gadyurin. Gdleen is showing up in URLs on a google search for "ガデュリン". I'm surprised that we have a page for it while ja.wiki does not, just one for the author. He doesn't have a homepage it would seem. There is no official site for the novels - in fact, it isn't even in print and there is no mention of it anywhere on the Kadokawa site and only a single mention on the Sneaker Bunko site. It's too old to have a "look inside" on Amazon. There's nothing on tokyolab.co.jp and the game companies don't even seem to exist any more.

OK, if the logo at the top of this page is a screenshot from the OVA, I think that is the best confirmation (other than 9200 ghits) we will get without direct access to the material in question. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, moving the article to Gdleen then. Not sure if it should go under the full title of the novels. But it would be nice to know what Jikō Wakusei (自航惑星) translates to. —Farix (t | c) 18:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yay, another chance to embarrass myself with my utterly inadequate understanding of Japanese. Here we go: I'd translate "自航惑星" as "self-navigating planet". Sounds nonsensical, but this is science fiction, right? Good raise 22:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move check

Can someone see if Talk:Case Closed (season 1) was a good move? I don't care much, but it will be a hassle if the pages are moved back again in the future. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought all episode lists were suppose to begin with "List of X" per the guidelines at WP:SAL? Its only when it becomes a seaons article, with its own development, cast, reception, and etc. would it follow "X (season 1)". —Farix (t | c) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'd like to direct people to Hunter × Hunter (1999 TV series) for a move back to List of Hunter × Hunter episodes.--十八 01:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just move that one back. There was not consensus to move. The Case Closed episode lists will need to go through another RM, even if the first was resulted in a no-consensus move, but was moved anyways.

I would, but an admin needs to do it.--十八 01:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note. We could use more project members weighing in on the move request at Talk:Mangaka. —Farix (t | c) 01:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about anime titles

Let's say for example, a manga/anime is licensed in America, and gets an English name. The article is then moved to the English title. However, after some time, the licensor drops all plans to release the series, and thus no releases are ever made. Does this mean the license expires immediately? If so, will it remain at the English title, or will it be moved back to the Japanese title, since nothing was ever released? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The license expires when the license is set to expire (specified in the contract between licensee and licensor). Licensed or not, without forthcoming releases, it may not make sense to continue using such a series' English title. Good raise 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To use Kodomo no Jikan (Nymphet) as an example, it would likely be moved back to its original name. If Seven Seas Entertainment had released the first volume, it probably would have stayed at Nymphet (manga). But Kodomo no Jikan is a special case and may not be a good precedent to establish a rule around. —Farix (t | c) 12:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Bunny Drop edit

Can someone who knows the ending of Bunny Drop verify that this edit is the removal of incorrect plot details or is an attempt to remove a spoiler? It appears to be the latter, but I don't know about the "have a child" part. —Farix (t | c) 00:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The anime cuts off quite early (elementary school) whilst the manga continues on much further, and I haven't finished reading the manga yet, however it is indirectly implied that the two have sex near the end of the manga. That's all I can remember, anyway. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

edit: Doing a quick Google image search for scanlations, I've found this scene, if that helps. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'll revert the edit since it appears to be removing a "spoiler". —Farix (t | c) 01:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TV vs television

I asked this question over at WP:TV and the general consensus was to use television instead of TV in article text as it would be more formal tone (similar to why we avoid contractions). But I like to get everyone's thoughts here. —Farix (t | c) 12:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the use of "television," as I also believe that this is a more formal tone. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just curious. Is there any specific reason behind choosing "anime television" over "television anime" in your recent AWB edits? -- クラウド６６８ 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Because anime is being used as an adjective to describe a type of television series. It also doesn't sound correct to put television in front of anime either for much like "film anime" doesn't sound correct. —Farix (t | c) 20:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to take any measures on this. TV series, is adequate enough. We don't call CDs "compact disc" and so forth. TV is just as formal as television. We don't have to elaborate on the obvious. using bigger words for the sake of formality when the shortened and equally accepted version does the same.Lucia Black (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it sounded a bit weird to me at first, but it's okay, I guess. I always think of it as "television" being used as an adjective to describe a type of anime that's broadcast on TV (akin to OVA vs OAV, I guess). I don't mind either way, but felt like asking anyway. -- クラウド６６８ 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Trinity Blood episodes at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Trinity Blood 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) 08:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New templates to deal with infobox flag icons

One of the long time issues has been how to present the English release information in the {{Infobox animanga}} without having to resort to flag icons. For the longest time, MOS:FLAG recommend not to use them in the infobox. And while there has been many a discussion about how to handle the situation, we've been affectively kicking this can down the road. Now generally, flag icons aren't much of a problem in the infoboxes except when Animax Asia enters the picture. Then it becomes an ugly mess. And from an accessibility end, they make things more complicated. So I'm introducing two possible templates to help reduce, if not eliminate the flag icons, User:TheFarix/Animanga licensees and User:TheFarix/Animanga networks. Both templates are based on {{Video game release}} from the Vidio game WikiProject. But I would like more feedback before placing both templates into production. —Farix (t | c) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, though I'm not sure if there's much of a difference between the templates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The first covers licensing regions that are pretty common (Northern American, Southeast Asia, Australasia, and Europe with the chance of replacing the latter with British Isles). The second allows for individual countries because most series are broadcast on networks that are limited to nations. While the two can easily be combined, I think that would make a general template more confusing to use. Best to keep things simple. —Farix (t | c) 10:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is commendable for you to ask for feedback before implementing changes affecting so many articles. That said, I have no objections. It's about time we got rid of the flags. Good raise 11:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any changes you think needs to be made before they are moved into Template space? Perhaps better names, considering that the first template will also be used of publisher information. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it, the templates could be more aptly named. Considering they have to deal with things like the PAL region, I understand why video games need their own template, but is the same true for anime and manga? Couldn't these templates be used for much more? In any case, I think proper documentation is essential for a template intended to be used in hundreds of articles. Writing it should not be put off until after the templates are used in article space. Good raise 12:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What other uses outside anime and manga article do you foresee and what names do you suggest? —Farix (t | c) 12:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why the templates could not be used in articles about French comics or Italian live-action TV-series. Unfortunately, naming templates isn't one of my strengths. Good raise 16:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking of calling both templates {{English anime licensees}} (with a redirect from {{English manga publishers}}) and {{English anime networks}} respectively. The name will help clarify that these are for English language information. The first that I will be put into production space would be {{English anime licensees}}. {{English anime networks}} may still need more work before it is ready for prime time. —Farix (t | c) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Both templates are now in Template space and I've used Naruto as a test article. Still need to work on documentation for {{English anime networks}} unless someone else like to take a crack at it. —Farix (t | c) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TheFarix, if you don't mind, I'll be deploying the template in a few other articles as well. If it's too premature at the moment, feel free to undo my edits. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that both are good to go. Both may need some more tweaking to make sure that everything that needs to be there is there. If you encounter any problems, drop a line. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cannot remove references to ANN's encyclopedia?

Last night, I did a sweep, involving 35 articles, were ANN's Encyclopedia was used as a reference for article content. This morning, I found that David Gerard reverted all of those edits and stated that it was inappropriate to remove those references even though ANN's Encyclopedia has been identified as an unreliable source because of its user generated content. In his comments, he indicated that there is no "bright line" between reliable and unreliable sources and it is better to reference an unreliable source than no source at all. —Farix (t | c) 10:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying it really has to be done case by case, actually reading the article and checking the relevance and usefulness of the reference, and that wasn't done in this case. User-generated sources are often quite reliable in practice, e.g. discogs.com - you have to apply actual editorial judgement, but source culling is a problem. Is ANN actually dangerously mostly-wrong in practice, not just in theory? - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We know that the ANN's encyclopedia is based on user generated content and therefore an unreliable source. I'm not sure how keeping references to it is an improvement in any way. We've found many errors as well as vandalism in ANN's encyclopedia, so you can't use it to verify anything. If we are going to keeping it or block it removal as a source, we may as well throw out WP:RS and WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on my personal experience, I'd estimate the information in ANN's encyclopedia (ANN has other sections which are not pertinent to this discussion) to be accurate more than 99% of the time. So what? When I'm in need of accurate information, I won't trust Wikipedia for obvious reasons. That's when I turn to the sources it cites and ANN's encyclopedia is of no help in such a situation. Even in theory, I don't see references to this source being beneficial to any article. References to it should be removed on sight. Good raise 11:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How about I go back through and replace all of the references to ANN's encyclopedia with {{fact}} in cases where the information would seem to be contentious (which would only affect one BLP), but otherwise remove it when it is used to reference uncontentious information? —Farix (t | c) 11:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Every piece of information in ANN's encyclopedia has a source field associated with it, which you can see by clicking the "lookup sources" link at the bottom of the page (note that for release dates, the source is often on the releases subpage). Often those source fields are blank, or say something like "I watched the anime", but it might be worth checking them to see if the information is coming from a reliable source that could be used instead of the reference to ANN's encyclopedia. Also, often ANN's encyclopedia will have a link to an official site that can be used to verify basic inforamation (like release dates or the anime's director), even if that site isn't cited as a source for the individual pieces of information on the ANN page. I think removing the references to ANN's encyclopedia are good, but if you can find a reliable source for the information from the ANN page, changing the reference to be to that source would be even better. Calathan (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Going back through them, they all are pretty much circular references (which WP:V explicitly directs to remove) or citing AllCinema.net, which has a disclaimer about the (in)accuracy of its information.[1] Now David, why would we want to keep the ANN Encyclopedia references in any form on the articles? —Farix (t | c) 21:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you've actually gone through and checked, that's all I'd ask. It's bot-stripping without checking that strikes me as really problematic - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep claiming that I was running a bot. When did all edits by AWB become a bot? Seriously, you should have double checked to confirm the references were bad instead of blanket reverting someone who knew full well that the references were bad from the start. Then not make any comments about it. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox problem with {{Plainlist}}

I've noticed a few editors using {{Plainlist}} to help improve accessibility in converting lists of English language networks, publishers, and magazines from using <br /> to bullet lists. This normally would not be a problem and is a big improvement, however, we will loose the automatic italicize function of the magazines field in {{Infobox animanga/Print}}. I have yet to find any way around this other than to go through the thousands of articles and add the italics directly. Thoughts? —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

School Rumble for TFA?

I'm currently planning to nominate School Rumble for Today's Featured Article on October 22, since that will be the manga's 10th anniversary. Actually, I already placed it in the "pending" requests. However, will this be a good idea? Hopefully, if it gets featured, we can get some publicity for our WikiProject and hopefully get more new editors. Below is the blurb I plan to use. Feel free to edit and improve it if possible. But anyway, should I go ahead with the nomination when the time comes? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

School Rumble is a Japanese Shōnen manga series written and illustrated by Jin Kobayashi. It was first serialized in Weekly Shōnen Magazine from October 22, 2002 to July 23, 2008, and later published in 22 tankōbon volumes by Kodansha. Magazine Special published a parallel world story, School Rumble Z, monthly from August 20, 2008 to May 20, 2009. School Rumble focuses on a love triangle involving the series' two protagonists, Kenji Harima and Tenma Tsukamoto, and one of their classmates, Oji Karasuma. The series often discards realism in favor of comedic effect. Two anime series were made: the first running from October 2004 to April 2005 and the second running from April to September 2006. There have also been two OAV adaptations, as well as three video games made for the series.

Yes, please do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A doubt

Can anyone answer this question? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I'm gather materials to revamp the article Mushishi and it's related article(s), and I was wondering if this counts as a reliable source. I've never heard of the publisher, so I just wanted to be sure. – Maky ^« talk » 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cocoro Books is an imprint of DH Publishing which also publishes other "unofficial" guides to various anime and manga series. But I cannot tell if this would be classified as vanity press or something other. If it is the former, it would not be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way to find out? I don't mind shelling out a few bucks to get it and use it as a source, but I'm new to all of this, and I'm not sure how to determine these things. Any suggestions? If it helps, there is a preview on Amazon... – Maky ^« talk » 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If I know how to determine whether DH Publishing is a vanity publisher, I would have given you a better answer. :\ —Farix (t | c) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have written to the publisher to ask for clarification, and will post what I receive back. – Maky ^« talk » 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have one or two of the "Mysteries and secrets revealed" books. As it says on the cover, it is unauthorised and I personally wouldn't use one as a source for anything. I gave up reading the Evangelion one since I kept disagreeing with it, and the Negima one (which I don't have) was used to "end" an argument here over Evangeline's full name (although that ref appears to have been removed at some point while no Japanese source confirmed "Katherine" as of around vol. 29 of the manga when I stopped importing). Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I didn't see that on the cover. Thanks. I'll scratch that one from my list. For now, I have the manga coming in by mail, and I hope to find some other fans who might be willing to translate the Japanese websites for me. Best, – Maky ^« talk » 18:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Japanese Movie Database

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Japanese Movie Database#JMDB. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Reborn! seasons

User:Wikipedical has been changing all the titles to List of Reborn! episodes to ones from the TV project. I reverted them but Reborn! (seasons 2-3) cannot be moved for unknown reasons. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is a non-controversial move, you can do this. Good raise 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems these types of moves are happening rather frequently. Has there been a recent RfC about episode lists that has overturned the previous RfC for a year ago that resulted in no consensus for a specific naming scheme? —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the previous RfC. So far, I haven't seen any new discussions on changing the naming schemes from "List of XXX episodes (season #)" to "XXX (season #)". —Farix (t | c) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Son Goku naming

Hi! In light of the naming dispute involving Son Goku of Dragon Ball, I did some searches for English RSes that mention the full name Son Goku. I found quite a few: Talk:Goku#Reliable_sources_in_English_using_.22Son_Goku.22 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli WikiProject/Task force?

I have been thinking if it's possible to form a task force or WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Studio Ghibli. Any thoughts, opinions or ideas would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would work best as a task force. I'm interested in helping with it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Count me in as well I am a big fan of his works and would intrest me to help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Im also interesred in a studio ghibli task force.Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify, the task force will not only be a descendant of WP:ANIME, but it will also be a descendant of both WP:FILM and WP:CVG. I am also notifying the WP:FILM project and WP:CVG as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILM I can easily understand, but WP:VG? I must have missed something in Ghibli's releases. —Farix (t | c) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a video game animated by Studio Ghibli: Ni no Kuni. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one, maybe two, games? That doesn't seem like enough crossover for the tack force to be a descendant project of WP:VG. *shrug* —Farix (t | c) 18:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Farix. Were it a task force, VG is barely relevant. As for Films, I would suggest that such a task force would best be represented as one of Anime and managa. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no video games done directly by Studio Ghibli as a whole, but they have assisted in work required for several (including two Nausicaa video games). So it's more than just one or two. There are at least 4 additional games I can think of which used Ghibli's services to one extent or another. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think it should also be a descendant of WP:DISNEY, since Walt Disney Studios is the primary licensor of Ghibli's works in general. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. GKIDS now distributes many of the films, so Disney may be moving themselves away from that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am developing the Ghibli task force page in my sandbox. It can be found at User:Sjones23/Studio Ghibli task force. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have started the project in the main space; it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Studio Ghibli. Anyone who is interested please sign up in the participants section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Production field

About a week and a half ago, I started a discussion about the |production= field that was included into {{Infobox animanga/Video}} without any previous discussions that I could find. I am still looking for input on the issue before doing anything beyond checking to see how many articles are using the field (37). —Farix (t | c) 04:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I added this parameter, because in my opinion this information is actually important for works like Dennō Coil or Space Battleship Yamato 2199; it makes clear which entity produces and invests in the show (note that in these cases the animation studio just works on a contract for other (big) companies behind the project) and who holds the copyright on the product. Information about the copyright holders and investors shoud be present in the article; eitehr in the body text or in the infobox; I would say the infobox is a good place for adding such info. --Raamin (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleshing out: The information about production companies behind an animated project is not an unimportant and excessive detail. These production companies are generally listed in the OP or ED of works (what ja.wikipedia uses I presume; for such works like Oda Nobuna no Yabō where the production companies aren't mentioned, ja.wikipedia doesn't list company names) and as I said earlier are copyright holders of the work; not the animation studio hired. Companies like Aniplex, Geneon Universal Entertainment or NHK Enterprises are actually the main forces behind works they produce; they decide who does what, they own the copyright, they are the one promoting and publishing the works they produce. These are big names (in the industry they are active) and should be mentioned properly in respective articles; I am of the opinion that infobox is a good place for this information. If adding the information in the infobox is not favoured, what other methods do you suggest? Adding an extra section in the body text of every article, like ja.wikipedia ("スタッフ" section)? --Raamin (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

School Rumble again

Well, I've gone ahead and nominated it for TFA on October 22. However, there are currently two mild opposes, saying that some technical issues have to be fixed. Can someone address those problems? It would be really good to have another anime TFA, so we need to take this chance. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy referencing, got to love it. ISBN 1-4210-1910-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum should probably be ISBN 1-4210-1912-4, according to this anyway. Good raise 15:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the progress on this? Has anyone picked it up? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't. Good raise 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop

While I'm on the subject of reviews. A recent set of edits to Cowboy Bebop alerted me to the fact that the article does not have a sourced reception section. Its a rather glaring oversight and I wonder how it went this long without anyone noticing. But the whole article could probably use some work as well so that it can be put up for a GA review. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

i've noticed it a while ago actually. But never had the time to focus on it. Considering how well-known the series is, i'm sure it wont be too much work to find reception.Lucia Black (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Arakure Knight

I am trying to set up a page in Wikipedia for Arakure Knight manga and film - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arakure_Knight If you can add any useful info please be my guest. It still needs sources and links mainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.17.104 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable about the works of Satoshi Yoshida, but I think you have confused his Shonan Bakusozoku manga with his later Arakure Knight manga. I think the dates you list in the current version of the article for when the manga ran are actually the dates for Shonan Bakusozoku, not Arakure Knight. From what I can tell from the Japanese Wikipedia page for Arakure Knight, I think Arakure Knight ran from 1995 to 2005. The Japanese Wikipedia page for Shonan Bakusozoku says it ran from 1982 to 1988, but my understanding is that the two series are pretty much separate works. Even though Arakure Knight was made into an anime named Shin Shonan Bakusozoku Arakure Knight (according to [2]), from what I've been able to gather the two series aren't related beyond having the same author and being about biker gangs. I think the name of the anime adaptation is just to help sell it to fans of Yoshida's earlier series. Calathan (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs to establish its notability. Unfortunately, this series doesn't appear to have been licensed outside of Japan, so you are missing the most critical source for establishing that notability, reviews. Unless you are lucky enough to find some Japanese review, you are pretty much SOL. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is release data available from the publisher. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And for Shonan Bakusozoku (probably a re-release by the dates) Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Chameleon (manga)

There is a editor that is adding unsourced material to the article Chameleon (manga) and has been yelling at other editors who removes the material from the article. (One of which was an IP that I edited from.)[3][4] We will need more eyes on this article. —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't need more eyes. We need to follow WP:DDE. Good raise 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the yelling in the talkpage, the user can barely speak english and worst he is over reacting. It doesn't sound like the editor is willing to listen.Lucia Black (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have considered it. Not listening is a sign of disruptive editing. WP:DDE explains how to deal with disruptive editors. Good raise 22:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How does removing unsourced material form an article threaten their life? —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i can't tell if they are serious or just being a troll but my guess is on the troll. Theres absolutely no way this is threatening someone's life.Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

An Invite and a Welcome?

I was thinking, how do we get more people older fans to get into this wikiproject and new editors who don't know so much about the guidelines and manuals of this wikiproject? Well, i thought maybe we can make invitation and welcome templates. Oh and probably a bot that adds a welcome tag to all those who have recently joined the wikiproject to their talkpage so we dont have to keep track of every new user manually. That way, people will feel more welcomed, more informed before editing, and we dont have to deal with certain conflicts. As for the invite, it would be great so that if we a regular member making edits on anime and manga related topics, maybe we could invite them to join? And then give them a welcome too.

i think this might be a good idea, but it feels like i'm not the first to suggest this. so if this is old, sorry for wasting your time.Lucia Black (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thought, but I don't think it would do much good. When new editors keep editing long enough, they automatically end up involved with WikiProjects sharing their interests. I think most new editors are scared off after their first few edits. They all start out as readers. Then they see something wrong or missing or (as it was in my case) are encouraged to edit by one of those "evil" tags. How established editors treat them will often decide whether they keep editing or not. All we need to do is treat new editors, and IP editors in particular, as equals (which they are). The first word new editors should read on their User_talk page is "Welcome", not "Warning". And they most certainly should not find themselves ganged up on by WikiProjects for violating some "consensus" they couldn't have known existed. Just be nice to new editors (or editors you think are new) and all will be well. Good raise 18:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that is the issue at all. Who says we're not nice to new editors? We do treat them as equals, what you are asking is much further, giving them a break, and even then we do give them a break. However, certain editors tend to give up once they don't understand a situation. I think you're making the members of this wikiproject look worst than what they are by saying the reason why we haven't received new long-term members is because we're too hard on them. But thats not the case. It's a difficult situation when a new member makes huge edits, and makes a mess (which will happen and no, we don't enforce rage on them for it) to accept they are wrong. Lucia Black (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Who says we're not nice to new editors?" – I'm saying some of this project's members are sometimes "mean" to new editors (without even realizing it). And sometimes is too often. What I'm asking isn't too much either. Just a little bit respect. Of course I understand why you think I'm asking too much, as you have made it clear to me in the past that you don't believe in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It's overly bureaucratic, I'll admit that, but pursued properly, it works. It even works when new editors make what you think is a "mess". Good raise 21:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why the regular welcome templates aren't sufficient enough. If an editor enjoys editing animanga articles, then they're going to eventually find their way to this project regardless if they're formally invited or not. And besides, if they edit animanga articles, aren't they already a member of our project? Even if a new editor makes a mistake, pointing them to the pertinent guideline is usually all that is necessary. There are times when editors are difficult to deal with, but it's not like we don't give them ample warning and chances to discuss disputes before things turn ugly.--十八 21:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Youre missing the point. Youre asking for what we already provide. And by "mess" try looking at what happened at the claymore articles and as civil as we tried the editor REFUSED to listen. BUT heres the point. A welcome does alot more than just giving them a guide from the getgo to save conflict issues, it reminds them that they are welcomed despite what issues occured. Plus, editors lately cant get a grip. An invite also does alot more than you make it out to be. Hypothetically if you were invited, and you joined + a welcome, wouldnt that encourage you to edit more related to anime and manga related articles?Lucia Black (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm missing the point, am I? I don't know what happened at the Claymore articles. Who was involved? What articles were affected? When did it happen? If you want me to look, at least tell me for what you want me to look. Good raise 02:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All you need to know was excessive reverting, and the articles were clearly harmed. Nearly ALL the Claymore (manga) articles you can look in the history. But i already said the point, a welcome does alot more than just give a guide but actually remind tgem they are welcomed to this wikiproject specifically AND be mire tolerant to their own mistakes.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to your conflict with Jamieclaymore (talk · contribs). You edit warred. You talked past each other. You went to ANI. And then Jamie left. Does that about sum it up? As EyeSerene (talk · contribs) put it on your talk page, "the other editor has posted that they're leaving Wikipedia, so perhaps they were never willing to work by our rules anyway." We'll probably never know now. You keep talking about new editors making mistakes. Has it occurred to you that you can make mistakes too? Try sticking to WP:1RR or even WP:0RR for a while. I think you'd be surprised how well that works. Good raise 04:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is.....that the welcome and invite ENCOURAGE others to edit within this wikiproject and aler the wikiproject for any suggestions. AND YES theres a difference between editing the articles on their own and the other being part of the project. I will not continue this woth you if you insist on deviating from true point.Lucia Black (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a difference in this whatsoever. An editor could very well work by themselves to get an article under this project up to GA or higher without consultation of anyone in the project. Would that mean, by your standards, that they are not 'part of the project'? What constitutes being 'part of the project' then? Following the rules? Having edited this talk page? That's pretty ridiculous when you consider that most new editors usually don't have a reason to edit project talk pages, and just stick to editing and improving articles they like, and they're less likely to be as familiar with all the rules, which is why we already point new editors to pertinent guidelines either on a case-by-case basis, or with a general welcome template already in use.--十八 07:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright. What is the difference? Good raise 05:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, that Claymore article has been a mess for years, but mainly for the ridiculous number of subcategories. On the assessments, it's always good to provide positive feedback and places for improvement. Where's the motivation in improving an article if it gets downgraded? AngusWOOF (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference is editors feel more welcomed to attempt to do things as a group. We cant keep track of every single article. With more editors encouraged to do things with more editors would allow more and bigger plans rather than maintaining what little we have. An invite does alot and a welcome too. This isnt about GA status but being able to get things done faster. Im saying beingnpart of the wikiprojectbdoes alot more or at least it used to. Maybe this is a wikiproject that doesnt even know why its a wikiproject anymore. We have numbers but do we have long term numbers? Interest in the wikiprojects goals means gainingnnew interests they originally didntnhave.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Treating a WikiProject as some kind of team isn't my idea, but I can see how some editors might find that appealing, doing things as a group rather than roaming the articles alone. Personally, I don't see myself teaming up with others in this manner and I don't think we should even try to turn the whole project into some sort of editing force, but I like the thought in general. Recently I thought it might be useful to have a page similar to the reference libraries, but where instead of offering access to sources, editors could offer their skills (e.g. copy-editing, translating, template coding, ...). Now I'm thinking we could also create a page where project members list larger tasks they're in the process of doing, so that editors who like doing things as a group could join others instead of finding something to do themselves. Tasks listed there could include everything from "Bring article X up to GA" to "Merge category of X characters into list". Good raise 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea, both the offering the skills and the who's doing what. Though I don't know how well it will end up being executed. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We have few numbers who edit under the tasks of the wikiproject over their initial interests, but the rest just usually focus on their own small number of articles and when their done, they fullfilled their tasks. People will be more encouraged to edit out of their range of interest from before, because their new interests are the interests of the wikiproject. For example, joining the clean up task force Or so. And the whole idea of Wikiprojects are for them to be an editing force. Its right here in black and white: Wikipedia:WikiProject. Although i like the ideas presented, i think that already exist, or at least it sounds like it already exists. For now, a welcome and an invite may come a long way. Not joining this project could mean just focus on articles their interested, but if they joined, they might want to take more interests in the tasks that have been asked to be done here. So there is a very clear difference between editing alone, and editing as a member of the wikiproject. Especially for new editors. Although, i would say that there are members out there who aren't part of the wikiproject, but tend to looka round the wikiproject and take interests in it anyways.

This is what i would imagine a Welcome would look like:

contain a very warm greeting and show enthusiasm to the gven editor of joining.
Mention some things that they may be useful to them such as MOS, reference library, and some other things.
The chance of them earning a BarnSakura. (optional, but it could help encourage even more).
and if they need any help, to ask any active member in the wikiproject for things related to this project.

As for an invite, it would look like

Mention that the wikiproject has noticed their editing skills and experience and would like them to join. (note: this is subjective and it can take up to a minor edit. So basically it can apply to nearly anyone)
And if they would like to help out imediately, they can look at the open tasks.
If they accept, mention that they would be warmly welcomed.

Anyways...thats what i think woujld be great. Also, i dont see what harm it will do. Are there any reasons why we shouldn't?Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, there's at least one editor who shares your view of what a WikiProject is or should be. I don't. If you think project members like me, who prefer to cooperate on an as-needed basis only, aren't really project members... Well, I'll get over it. Still, that's where I see the problem. You want to turn this project into a "we", where I want it to be an "it". Cooperation is fine, but you can't keep doing major changes to anime and manga articles without sooner or later having to come here. I don't want editors in such a position to feel like it's "me vs. them", which is something that happens way too often already. Good raise 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No. i'm not implying this as a number issue for consensus or anything of the sort. I'm merely suggesting we get more, so that open tasks may be done even faster. And even so, maybe issues may occur. Or new suggestions to optimize editing. However, this project already is a "we". Why do you think some wikiprojects get labeled as inactive? Because "we" make the wikiproject. If there are no active members, the project is practically useless.Lucia Black (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, even if you were the type of editor to keep things on as-needed basis. I still don't see what the issue is for going against something that doesn't relate to you. it's like going against something good simply for it not being in your personal ideal interests.Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me just make it very clear....This is only to gain new members to help out on what already needs help. Open Tasks, etc. this is not about gaining more members for the sake of consensus. This is merely to encourage more editing within the project.Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing good about the creation of little WikiGangs, owning articles by proxy and bullying newcomers of the site. I understand that's not what you want, but that's what I see happening already and fear will only get worse when WikiProjects are seen as teams of editors rather than as groups of pages used by individual editors to coordinate their efforts. That's why I think some WikiProjects get labeled as inactive, because a WikiProject without members is still a WikiProject, just one that isn't being used. But let's not get distracted by semantics. I don't see anything wrong in principal with making editors aware of this project, rather than inviting them to "join the team". I just don't see it doing anything good. Those who want to be here will find their own way. There's a project banner on every single anime and manga talk page after all. Good raise 22:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your only assuming bad faith. And that has to stop imediately because its not even a realistic prediction. Also an invite does alot more, its called awakening an interest. They may not have initial interest but it does more.Lucia Black (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating? Exactly where am I assuming bad faith? Good raise 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

youre seeing a wikigang and WP:Own and a battle between them vs the other. Assuming bad faith in members we could have.Lucia Black (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm assuming, if anything, is ignorance and incompetence. In fact, I don't have to assume either, I'm seeing plenty of both. I have a feeling this isn't the first time I'm suggesting this, but still, please, re-read WP:FAITH, because you don't seem to understand it yet. Good raise 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not what i'm saying. you assume that this will go negatively, because you think people will start WP:OWNing several articles and wikigangs, only by the mere idea of inviting and welcoming others to the wikiproject. I think you need to read WP:FAITH more than i do. Its like you seeing a loophole that doesn't exist. Assuming good faith means assuming they are doing what they do for the sake of helping the project. But if you're assuming they will hurt it for something subjective as an invite and welcome? Then it's pretty obvious you're assuming bad faith.

You're being mellodramatic over the whole invite and welcome thing, and you know it. If all that you said is true, then oh well, it's not a negative thing. You're only trying to control what the wikiproject's talkpage becomes.Lucia Black (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to reply piece by piece, as I don't know how else to do it.

"That's not what i'm saying." – What is not what you're saying? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
"you assume that this will go negatively, because you think people will start WP:OWNing several articles and wikigangs, only by the mere idea of inviting and welcoming others to the wikiproject." – No, what I'm predicting is that sending out invitations and welcome messages of the form you propose – as opposed to simply informing editors about the project – would lead especially new editors to see this and other WikiProjects as teams. I object to the notion of projects as teams because I fear it will increase the frequency in which well meaning new editors have to face groups of editors (unintentionally, out of ignorance and force of habit) employing underhanded tactics to get their way, scaring off potentially valuable new editors. I'm not predicting that sending out invitations and welcome messages of the form you propose would start this behavior, I'm saying it is already happening.
"I think you need to read WP:FAITH more than i do. Its like you seeing a loophole that doesn't exist. Assuming good faith means assuming they are doing what they do for the sake of helping the project. But if you're assuming they will hurt it for something subjective as an invite and welcome? Then it's pretty obvious you're assuming bad faith." – Aren't you begging the question here?
"You're being mellodramatic over the whole invite and welcome thing, and you know it." – Engaging in civil discussion is being melodramatic? Really?
"If all that you said is true, then oh well, it's not a negative thing. You're only trying to control what the wikiproject's talkpage becomes." – I'm glad we can agree on something. I am trying to influence the outcome of this discussion. Aren't you doing the same?

Anyway, as we don't seem to be getting anywhere, it might not make sense to continue this much longer. Good raise 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I say mellodramatic because ots not a real issue. Youre trying to influence the discussion bit you have such a specific and negative view that ISNT related to the welcomes and invites other than what people think then what they are. This isnt a team effort but a group effort. Teams implies competition and against another team. You fear what hasnt happened. You just see the negative that isnt there. Maybe you shouldnspill your fears when it comes true. Amd it hasnt. Or for the most part you tryingnso hard for giving this a chance for your personal fears.Lucia Black (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't happened? I've observed it happening multiple times. Just the most recent example: July 1, 2012 at Upotte!!, a group of editors, rallied here, wages a week-long edit war against an IP editor before somebody starts a discussion thread. First on the IP's talk page is not, as it should be, a warm welcome, but a warning message. This is not how you make new editors feel welcome. Good raise 00:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

look...ill keep it simple. Promoting doscussions and more help for the wikiproject wont do any nehative. Amd reading closely. Your views still remain too personal. And you arent helping. For example you fear others will see this as a team effort and you dont like team effort but who says we'll let them. Sometimes people need to fall in order to learn. A welcome and invite. Amd no...thisnisnt about warnings. Preech when the time comes but dont push such things when its not happening. You always deviate the idea into what you wamt it to be so you can reject itLucia Black (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lucia, honestly. You can't say it's "not happening" when Goodraise has just given you a recent example of what he's talking about. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to have seen similar things happen before, whether with good or bad intentions. In such cases, more experienced editors will sometimes come here to canvas support for a dispute on article X before engaging the editor(s) via article X's talk page, or the talk page of the editor(s). Our dispute resolution process mentions asking for help from WikiProjects, but only to receive input in discussions already going on on article X's talk page, not to bring in new editors to revert "non-project members" as you would label them. Doing so creates an "us vs. them" mentality, and is generally very bad when trying to bring in new editors.--十八 01:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It happened. But its not happening. Thats what im trying to make clear. If it happens then preech. However....that situation happened without discussion and goodraise is saying this will be about more discussions being brought up. And if you think im saying non project member then clearly youre not listening. And if canvassing occurs in this wikiproject. Let it. Because if we dont let it happen. Members will not fully learn the rules even if they did look them up. There is no us vs them because there is no "them".Lucia Black (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Does "there is no 'them'" imply there is an "us"? Even if that's not the case, how you personally word the invite/welcome could potentially create an environment where it is, even if only accidentally. As more experienced editors, we are supposed to be setting an example for the new editors by not condoning canvasing or letting users get away with it. This project is not here for the purpose of getting other members to gang up on others, but to foster discussion and improve the encyclopedia in an orderly fashion.--十八 03:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is only us. Because we're all editors. Joining the project is taking interest in the tasks the project has left for editors to view. It is not a form responsibilty or title for amyone to consider this us vs them. Its us vs us. Conflicts will occur. We control how others view the welcome and invite. We can also add that anyone can ve invited. But overall its overreacting and making it look like a situation we cant control when we most certainly can. Also canvassing isnt wrong. Just innapropriatte canvassing. Theres a difference. And it will occur and theres nothing wrong with it as long as it done appropriately. We control the situation, dont make it out as if we dont. And the way i set up the welcome and invite is only a suggestion. Im perfectly willing to collaborate.Lucia Black (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

at this point. I think its abundantly clear that we can do this without worry. Just a matter of idontlikeit.Lucia Black (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think you have presented a convincing argument doesn't mean that you actually have. I'm not convinced, and I don't see anyone else here enthusiastically endorsing your idea either. I still think your plan, if executed unmodified, will do more harm than good. Also, that I don't like your idea doesn't mean that I just don't like it. I have explained my line of reasoning rather than just expressing my emotions. Good raise 00:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

actually its not about convincing is turning sonething into something else. You just admitted it needs modification which i already said im willing to work on but you cant just change it without knowing whats wrong with it. And your reasons arent based on the welcome/invite. I say idontlikeit for very clear reasons, and that is that you know it can work but refuse to be a part of it.Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

~~Nobody here agrees with you. Why do you think that is? Good raise 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)~~ It took me a while, but I think I now understand what you are trying to say. I don't like your current proposal. I don't think I'll like it no matter how much it is changed, but I'm open to the possibility that I may be mistaken about that. I don't know how to improve it, nor do I care to even try. I admit that, but my unwillingness to help doesn't render my arguments given above invalid. WP:IJDLI doesn't say anything of the sort. You can dismiss my arguments as "personal" or "not based on" your proposal, but what matters at the end is whether there is consensus, and so far I don't see anyone in favor of even a hypothetical, modified version of your idea. Good raise 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Il propose another time. When people are more willing to post. Only ones aare juhachi and you. Plus lack of members.Lucia Black (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lists of episodes – plainrowheaders

Never mind. Good raise 18:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit should now be performed on every table using {{Japanese episode list}}. If someone could do that using AWB, that would be great. Good raise 00:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a very bad "fix" to begin with. The problem should be fixed in the template, not by adding more code to tables. But why is the template bolding the episode number in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See Template talk:Japanese episode list#Edit request on 27 September 2012. Good raise 02:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question about why the episode number is bold in the table. —Farix (t | c) 02:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. This causes the bold episode numbers. Complying with this is why the change was made. Good raise 02:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why were the cells containing the episode turned into headers? They aren't headers, they are data cells. —Farix (t | c) 02:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Row & column headers ... help present the information in a logical structure to visitors. The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request."^WP:DTAB Good raise 02:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tables do need one or the other, but not both. But if you must use a row header, then it should be the episode title, not the episode number. —Farix (t | c) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Episode title or episode number, personally I don't care which it is. In fact, you're talking to the wrong guy here. I just went along with what the folks at {{Episode list}} did. If you have issues with it, I suggest you take them upstream to Template talk:Episode list or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Good raise 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Listing streaming websites as networks?

I've noticed an IP adding Neon Alley to the English networks of {{Infobox animanga/Video}}. I know that in the past, we have not listed Hulu or Crunchyroll as networks. Is there something different about the Neon Alley stream service that it should be treated as a network while Hulu or Crunchyroll are not? Second, if Neon Alley is listed as an English network, should Hulu and Crunchyroll simulcasts and streams also be listed in the English network field? —Farix (t | c) 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Neon Alley is a little different to a streaming site since it is essentially a [linear] broadcast service that just happens to be accessible only on a PS3. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More Merges of Ghost in the Shell

I put up a discussion for merge, if anyone is willing to take alook and be a part of the discussion. the discussion is here at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga). If not, i may be bold about it and see if anyone doesn't agree.Lucia Black (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Tools - reflinks vs. webreflinks

I've been using Wikipedia:Reflinks but apparently there are two tools on that page and I wanted to note: 1. webreflinks - converts bare references to the cite web format with a decent attempt at filling in the dates, titles, and other notes 2. reflinks - converts bare references but not by much: it'll put it as Wikipedia (bot generated title)

The second script is what's posted on the project page, but it isn't as good as the webreflinks one. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Kizuna: Bonds of Love

I'm currently giving Kizuna: Bonds of Love a bit of a overhaul and it appears that the plot summary is extremely outdated (and maybe the character descriptions are too?). I have only a passing knowledge of the series so I have no way to rewrite the section myself. I was hoping someone here was familiar enough with the series to lend a hand? Cyn starchaser (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

igpx picture

the article Immortal Grand Prix does not have a picture in it. I think someone should upload a picture for it and then add it. thank you.

Zeroro (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That and 1,600+ other articles. So why not you search the publisher's websites or Amazon for an image of the DVD cover? —Farix (t | c) 13:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Zeroro. Please do not take Farix' comment to be as rude as it sounds. He has a point though, in suggesting you take action yourself. If you decide to do so, and I hope you do, I'll gladly help out if you run into technical or copyright related problems. You can ask me on my talk page or just start another thread here. Good raise 14:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with GAN

I am reviewing Holmes no Mokushiroku, and I would like a second opinion and/or help resolving the one lingering issue (involving the plot summary). Please see the review. DragonZero is apparently very busy with school and also has a strong difference of opinion. There has been no reply for 17 days, and though I could possibly pass it, I still feel very uncomfortable with it because of the policies and guidelines noted in my comments. – Maky ^« talk » 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is insane. Why do we even have articles on individual story arcs? Is there any other precedent for this type of article, because it screams fancruft, especially when most of the content in the article is a plot summary. We are supposed to avoid subjects that are trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. This is more directed at the other arc article DragonZero created, With a Bang (Case Closed). Even before I get to the fact that the plot summary is overly detailed for a mere 6 chapters (hell, there's more plot here than I've seen in series with 6 or more volumes!), but the anime section is a re-hash of info found on Case Closed (season 11), and any reception of notable arcs could go on the main article, but this arc is far from what I would consider notable or even note-worthy in the series as a whole or animanga in general. This is bad practice, and I don't think Wikipedia needs 10,000 new articles for all the arcs in One Piece, Naruto, Dragon Ball and Bleach, because that's where this is going.--十八 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I was unfamiliar with the arcs for this story line, and was simply treating it as an article about a manga/anime. What do you suggest? Do we nominate to delete? I'm too much of a newcomer to this project, so I'm open for advice. – Maky ^« talk » 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a project thing but try sending them to AFD to see what happens. The articles were created with the intent of trying something that, as far as I know, hasn't been done before. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not surprising as to why it's never been done before, as I outlined above. I'd appreciate more comments from the project before going further, though I could cite previous precedent for arc summary articles being deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate/stay night scenarios (2nd nomination).--十八 05:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

At first I thought it was an article about one of the Detective Conan movies, in that case, it would have been fine as is. But it looks like a story arc. Then it can be trimmed way down and allocated to the Chapters and Season/Episodes lists and perhaps characters (if new ones are introduced for the duration). Like you said, there's a Case Closed Season 11 that can talk about the story arcs. List of One Piece episodes (season 6) has two arcs: Skypiea and Golden Bell AngusWOOF (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to say that it has never been done before. One Piece use to have a series of "story arc" articles that were eventually deleted because they were a violation of WP:NOTPLOT. I'm not sure if they are listed in the deletion archives as this was before the archives were set up. But at least these two articles are attempting to bring some OOU information in, unlike the One Piece arc articles which were just extensive plot summaries. —Farix (t | c) 10:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the AfD of those story arc articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Enies Lobby arc —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Need more participation at AfD

There are a number of ongoing anime and manga AfDs that have received little attention (three of which have been relisted twice do to a lack of participation). There is a serious need for more participations at AfD. —Farix (t | c) 01:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tatsuneko

Greetings, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tatsuneko is currently up at WP:AFC. If anyone can comment on the WP:Notability of this person, quality of sourcing, that'd be appreciated. It's AFC, so you can comment directly on the draft itsef, preferably by putting the template {{afc comment}} first. Thanks for any expert advice for our more generalised technical reviewers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

One articles category

Rave Master, Ranma ½, Alice Academy, Boogiepop, and Cardcaptor Sakura has only an article in respective characters categories. My question is: those categories would be deleted, because has few articles? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. A category is useless if it only has one article. Those categories should be sent to CfD and once deleted, then their members can be categorized in the Anime and manga characters category. Alternatively, Sakura Kinomoto can be at the Clamp characters category (which is the CCS characters category's "mother" category), while the other characters can be at relevant categories. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'll go ahead and nominate them for deletion right away. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yellow pages

Recently I thought it might be useful to have a page similar to the reference libraries, but where instead of offering access to sources, editors could offer their skills (e.g. copy-editing, translating, template coding, ...).[5] It's just an experiment, but maybe it'll go somewhere. Sign up here. Good raise 19:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So we dont need xonsensus for things like this? Also although this would be good. It would be difficult to do since we dont have many members. That said this has an even stronger sense of wp:own and wikigang then what my previous idea was.Lucia Black (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate the page for deletion. Good raise 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats the point of deleting? It seems like a beta test project but dont you.think it would be better to get concensus eitherway? Also isnt thus much closer to wikigangs and wp:own? The very thing your avoiding? Im startimg to think that big speech was just an excuse to hide the real reason: not having to find more discussions in the wikiproject's talkpage. Its like your avoiding a question by suggesting the easy way out. And even then it would be difficult for lack of members joining in onto the discussion IF i nominate it for deletion. So it looks rather advantatious.Lucia Black (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Answering your questions in order: Deleting it would put a stop to my attempts to proliferate bullying and page ownership. It would appear we already have a consensus. No, I don't think so. Good raise 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we even need to nominate it for deletion? It could be done easily since its your page.Lucia Black (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's right. If I wanted the page deleted, I could make a WP:CSD#U1 request. Good raise 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How, in any way possible, offering helpful services to editors that may need such services could be considered WP:OWNing or WikiGanging is so ridiculous, I can't even begin. Then why do we even have WP:LOCE or any other group of editors offering help and assistance? You don't even give a reason why you think so, making your "arguments" seem small and petty.--十八 21:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Because this is different. such as copy editors and things, instead would look for said available people to canvass inapropriately. Its basically a list of available people that mention said skill. Wp:LOCE is almost the same but less specific group for it to be potentially bias. Its for the exact same reasons said when the welcome/invite was rejected. See how things get turned around? One person makes a request. However gets rejected for unrelated issues, in the end play the consensus card. BUT when it comes to having similar ideas? The same reasons are easily applicable. Only this time the vague issues given on the previous tiffs are much more related this time.Lucia Black (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My only comment for the moment is that I don't believe LOCE is any less or more specific than Goodraise's yellow pages. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A reference library for editing for a wikiproject and a wikiproject for copy editing. One actually is more specific.Lucia Black (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure whether you are in support or opposition. I'll assume you are in opposition—why argue when there's no disagreement?—but I won't try to convince you, because a) I don't understand your reasoning and therefore can't respond, and b) I don't recall you ever having changed your mind about anything, which is why I'm inclined to believe I'd only be wasting my time. I'll instead make an observation: Your proposal received no support from anyone except yourself, while this proposal has so far been opposed by no one except yourself. Good raise 03:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats rather uncivil of you. Just 2 people opposed for the same reasons i oppose for this and you saw why and suggested . I dont change my mind? Do you? Im saying this is incredibly hipocritical. My idea was turned into something it wasnt. Whether you see it or not the reasons you and juhachi for rejecting a way to get more help apply to several potential ideas of promoting this wikiproject. Someone can easily see this as a team of editors. An "us vs them". I dont see why you made that observation unless you are suggesting something.

I reject because you apply your reasons when it seems fit. You dont stand by them and its hipocritical. But its more than that. Thie reasons you gave that rejected my idea applies ten times more in this situation because it actually suggests that there is a team of editors.Lucia Black (talk)

I was indeed suggesting something when I made that observation. Allow me to explain: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. You can believe that I'm an uncivil, dishonest, incredibly hypocritical pair of magical shoes, tap dancing on a king-sized keyboard, if you want. Fortunately, on Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus not requiring unanimity, which means that a) you need to provide convincing arguments rather than continuously repeating your opinions as if they were facts and b) we can ignore your opinions until you do provide such arguments. Oh and in case you're wondering, convincing arguments distinguish themselves from what you have been providing so far by actually convincing other editors. Good raise 05:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

thats the thing. Im using the same reasons you are when you rejected the welcome/invite proposal But this time the reasons you gave apply much more compared to the welcome/invite proposal because it actually does suggest a sense of "us vs them". And it allows people to canvass inapropriately much easier when they can easily come to the task force. Instead it would be easier to promote the clean up task force and the clean up requests. It makes things much less personal and easier for others to access rather than promoting a list of members with potentially self proclaimed skills for others to look for.Lucia Black (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much experience you've had with getting other editors to copyedit articles, but it's pretty difficult. This is the main reason WP:LOCE exists, but because of its massive backlog, it's not very effective for quick help. Not to mention that getting someone who's involved in copyediting similar articles is also hard to come by if you ask someone outside the project. WikiProjects can help facilitate this by offering help from editors who have more experience working on certain articles, in this case, animanga articles. These yellow pages are essentially doing what WP:ANIME/CLEANUP#Participants already does for users who have nominated themselves as users who could help with cleanup requests if need be. Cleaning up is not the same as copyediting, so having a separate page for people to ask copyeditors (and translators, miscellany, etc.) seems like it would be a good thing. Or are you suggesting we do away with WP:ANIME/CLEANUP#Participants entirely and make the project as impersonal as possible, and in doing so, make it nigh impossible for anyone to get any help?--十八 06:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, are you saying there are already groups of folks who work a specific aspect of this project, like checking translations? I know the GOCE does bimonthly drives (usually ones that are tagged over a year old and Request specific posts), and some articles are kicked back because they were not in any shape to do a decent copyedit job on them. If Anime/cleanup is the right spot for pooling requests as well as "wikifying" pages, then that's good. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would say that they work a specific aspect of the project, but they help where they are needed. Why else should you list yourself as a participant if not for that reason? Sure, you might just be cleaning up articles you're interested in, but interest is the main reason you work on any article. I feel the requests are there to notify anyone where help is needed, but the side effect of listing your name as one of the participants should be to expect requests from other editors. Whether those requests are honored or not is another matter, and participant lists tend to get dated, so there's always going to be less than the number listed that are available to help. What it doesn't do, however, is be specific on what editors are proficient in what fields; Goodraise's yellow pages or some variant of it could help facilitate in that regard.--十八 07:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, and perhaps an extension of the GOCE and cleanup efforts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference of loce is that its not user specific. Again i originally wanted this as personal but got rejected for something irrelevant which in the left to vote count. Im saying promoting the clean up task force and clean up request would do more good. We already have skills that we offer. But the difference of wp:loce and wp:anime is we have a stronger potential to not get backlog. And Goodraise you just proved my point why the welcome/invite would be useful.Lucia Black (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have all the necessary tools to fix the articles. We just need to look for them and remember them and use them. Many wikiprojects make drives and other mini projects. And it actually works. Edit requesting per user sounds ilogical and some may chooses preferences over others. That and some might ask for specific things. It just doesnt seem right. These rype of things can be done here on the wikiproject and without worry and scandal. Its what the talkpage is for. Or make a cleanup request. There already is several articles need help. We clean them up as part of a personal project or a wikiproject's goal and we can use that to promote it even further.

and again...dont ignore this: previous idea was attacked and used irrelevant reasons amd had a bias consensus. However this time those said reasons apply even more here. I just want the hipocracy to end.Lucia Black (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What can I say? I don't agree. If you think my conduct is objectionable, you might want to start a thread at WP:DRN. Good raise 23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Depending on your next responce, I will. What makes this any different? What makes your reasons to reject the welcome/invite not apply here (this question is for juhachi aswell). It feels as of theres a high form of confidence because im the minority. But even if that wasnt the reason, thus idea is still rather unnecessary and has its flaws. You dont agree? To what exactly? And your reasons why? Give me your compelling reason. You act as if you are the one who needs to be convinced but makes no effort to resolve the conflict.Lucia Black (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, WP:ANI might be the better place to go, or maybe WP:RFC/U. I'm not sure. This is somewhat of an odd conflict we're having here. Decide for yourself. Good raise 00:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My main reason for objecting in a nutshell was what I originally said: there doesn't seem to be a reason to go out of our way to create a separate welcome template for this specific WikiProject when the regular welcome template works just fine. But also in how you, Lucia, proposed to word such an invite, specifically asking users to "join the team", which could (even accidentally) create an "us vs. them" mentality, and later lead to WP:OWNing and WikiGanging. I don't agree that WikiProjects are teams of editors, but rather that a WP is a tool used by editors who work on similar articles to coordinate their efforts and to create via consensus a form of structure to follow, i.e. WP:MOS-AM. This yellow pages proposal doesn't have any of that baggage attached to it, since all it's doing is listing users, something we already do and have done without any problem, who can help users in specific areas where it is needed.--十八 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I already answered those. the welcome would have resources specifically for WP:ANIME, something the normal welcome template has and actually i noticed another Wikiproject doing the same, so it's not as if its a bad idea. It doesn't have to be a replica of the Welcome tag we get when we first join. A welcome from wikipedia itself or a welcome from a wikiproject, there is a clear difference. Of course one gets welcomed when they are in wikipedia, however doesn't it seem even more inviting in the long run when you get welcomed to something more specific?

the invite allows anyone who wants to invite to give a sense of interest in the wikiproject. So that drives and goals of the wikiproject could be done without the worry of lack of members. It all depends on how you "want" to see it. Really "anyone" can invite "anyone" and maybe the welcome tag could even suggest that if they encounter someone who would like to join, then they may do so. The only way this would be a wikiteam/WP:OWN/Wikigang is if this was wikiproject was invite only. But again, who's to say one person can't see this as an "us vs them"? when theres a clear line between "us" (the editors willing to help) and them (those who would ask of it). The invite is joining the "cause" not joining the "team" but even so, a team won't be the issue. And now that i tihnk about it. How does joining a team exactly lead to WP:OWN? Thats when one or a group of members believe they own an article or control it. This is assuming all new members that joined due to the invite template would take all the same interest in one article and somehow have the same negative mentality we make ourselves believe. I don't doubt that we will get members like this, what i doubt is it will lead to what you make it out to be. Granted, i do believe it is highly likely that a handful of editors will be interested in one article, most likely the more popular ones. However i dont believe those handful of members are that naive to believe they are in a mutual team that will allow them to do what they do because they didn't learn the rules (which in turn the welcome template is there for a reason, to give them a miniguide with MOS:AM and other recourses available in WP:ANIME). And lets say they do take it the wrong way. We can just Insure that the invite is to get more members interested in helping what the wikiproject's scope is, not neccessarily making a team of editors, but making an editing force. Especially if we're inviting someone who is well experienced. The whole idea is to have interest in goals and drives we can expirement with and see if they are successfull. Because its as you said, members will edit to their personal interest, but what if we awaken other interests? The idea isn't exactly perfect, but i think we all know its managable without worry.

There will ALWAYS be someone believing this is a team an "us vs them" etc., with and without the welcome/invite tag. But that doesn't necessarily mean it will lead to what you said Juhachi. There are already edit wars, but we aren't always aware of them, some happen without discussion and some just don't know where to go?

this idea Goodraise proposed however, already suggest a group of editors to take advantage of negatively. Someone can easily believe they are in the right and ask for something irrelevant to their tasks (of course, its just as managable as the welcome/invite tag). For example: An edit-war we aren't aware of occurs, they know there is a list of members who are active and willing to help. And they will get the help, just not what they wanted.

Also the fact that this idea doesn't seem that necessary as we already have the tools we need to do what Goodraise proposed. Which is the clean up task force AND the clean up request but better because it allows other members to see. Which Goodraise practically proposed but only allowing one member to ask help from a specific member of their choosing (WP:OWN/Wikigang). A more nuetral and more affective way would be clean up task force and clean up request. The only thing we need to do is just promote it, not demote it. That way people can propose task force and more members will be editing the swame article.Lucia Black (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There's also the fact that an invite to a project may lead to some thinking they are obligated to participate in discussions and/or edit/improve the articles on WP:ANIME/CLEANUP, and I feel this would generally be counterproductive. A new, inexperienced editor wouldn't have the knowhow to properly clean up an article. There's the argument "But what if they really are experienced?" However, we're basically talking about editors who know nothing of Wikipedia's rules, assuming this is why they received the welcome/invite in the first place. There'd be no reason to give it to an experienced user since they would already (presumably) be involved in editing animanga articles, and already have a grasp on the rules. So inviting a new editor to join a cleanup task force when they have no real knowledge of how the process works seems like it would do more damage than good, because they would be bound to encounter opposition when they start editing and "improving" the article (as they themselves personally see it, but may not agree with established consensus).

But then you argued "They can just read the guidelines/policies on this proposed welcome/invite first, and then clean up those articles." While this might happen for some, for most reading pages and pages of guidelines and policies is so tiring and boring, they just don't bother. What new editors want to do most is edit, and ask questions later. Sure, pointing them to WP:MOS-AM on day 1 might be a good thing if they read it, but in the end, they'll probably be directed to that guideline (and other guidelines/policies) when they make a mistake, and that is when I feel it is most pertinent, since it's on a case-by-case basis. We can't expect new editors to have the desire to read a veritable encyclopedia unto itself of guidelines and policies, so we allow them to take it a little at a time, learning from their mistakes as they go with (hopefully) as little conflict as possible. My argument is that even without this proposed project welcome/invite, they're going to find their way to the project sooner or later, and thus find their way to WP:MOS-AM sooner or later.

Let me put it to you this way. On the contributors link for this talk page, I can see that I first edited this talk page on May 2, 2007, more than a year after I joined Wikipedia, but I've been editing animanga articles since day 1. Even yourself, Lucia, first edited this talk page on October 12, 2009, more than 5 months after you joined Wikipedia. Do you consider yourself any less of a member of WP:ANIME during those five months? I know I sure don't between March 2006 when I joined and May 2007. Anyone who stays on Wikipedia for any lengthy period of time will eventually find their way to at least one WikiProject, but I don't believe that it should be forced on them, or come much too early when they are still relatively inexperienced.--十八 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you saw my point and agreed and now you are moving to a new point to a counter. But still, In the end this one is even more subjective. Not only is it too subjective, it is a bit over the top. We dont have a large ammount of info for them to feel overwhelmed and its there for them for easy access not so that they are obligated to read. Juhachi i think we both know this is a little much to take seriously because we're putting prediction within prediction. BUT Lets say this does make someone feel obligated to be part of a discussion. How counter productive will it be? Its an invitation and warm welcome. It is not an obligation. And lets say perhaps, that all you said wasnt subjective, that there is a large number of that happening and you have the numbers to prove it. Then we can only work with it until it works. Such as making it clear this is not an obligation. Its not a constricting idea that absolutely be a "no". Just mention the issues and its workable. However, will you forever look for subjective reasons why not? Instead you can find ways to easily counter them? They can be countered and they can be countered easily.

However, this may help in a positive way. Within those five months i only edited anime and manga articles that i initially was interested but when i joined i obtained a new interest of anime and manga articles in general. You see? We awaken a new interest amd if they are not interest they may decline. I do hope this doesnt lead to "well nothing convinces you, andnnothing convinces me, so it will lead to just consensus". Because i really want to see how one sees onenproposal to another and what ideas they choose to use.Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't agreeing to anything. I was merely bringing up another point in my argument, and at the same time responding to some what you said in that block of text. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't just call something subjective and then assume it's fact or that others automatically agree with you. Most new editors would not take the time to read all the necessary guidelines and policies, and even if they did, it's doubtful that they would retain all that information and easily apply it without first gaining experience over time. You may ask, "Well Juhachi, how can you say most editors won't read them? That's what they're there for!" and then I would say, "Well, Lucia, based on my extensive experience on Wikipedia, a long six and a half years, I have seen time and time again that new editors are typically not as well versed in guidelines and policy as more experienced editors" and I think you would agree. Why are they not well versed, you ask? Because they don't take the time to read them, or even if they do, they simply disregard them. So don't just assume pointing them to these guidelines and policies with this welcome/invite would do anything, because I doubt it would. It doesn't mean anything to them at that time; it's only after they are pointed to specific guidelines would I assume they actually read them.

And just for the record, I didn't find a "new interest" after I first edited this talk page, because I felt I was a member of this project since day 1. Hell, the first time I worked to get an article up to GA was Air (visual novel) in January 2007 (and Kanon five days later), four months before I even edited this talk page. But for you, I guess you really weren't a member for those five months, or else why would you say, "...but when i joined..."? If so, I feel that you are in the minority.--十八 02:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Then i still stand by both old and new points i said until a reason given that im wrong. And i actually wamt to be challenged. Because i dont want to feel like this is only a pointnof personal interest against good cause. And what makes this not subjective? Have we made surveys? Have we experienced invite tags enough to say they feel like obligations or forced to join? Are these things not avoidable if the idea was approved? The main point is to awaken new interest for those who dont have a wide interest of the wikiproject. The other options are there for those who might want to read them. Your arguing about an aspect of the welcome tag that arent really relevant to the idea or cause. Otherwise we might aswell not have welcome tags in general. Wikipedia would say "hey there. Welcome. Figure it out yourself". Im not going to ask whether they read it or not, because thats just an extra aspect to the welcome template, the idea is to feel welcomed and excited. I forgot the name of them but those who give inspoirational speeches but a miniature version.

Lets not say im the monority simply because you felt you were part of the project since day1 and i didnt. I wasnt even aware of the project yet. But here we have editors who only look for their personal interests and although thats not bad. We can invite them and they will gain more interests. It feels like some of what im saying is being ignored. Your not the majority, neither am i. We cant tell really unles we try to make a survey. However, does this idea has to go south simply because one feels that way? For example: if one already felt an editor was part of the project and we send them invite. Will that hurt in anyway? I dont see the harm and who knows, they might learn something new they initially didnt know. And lets say we give one to someone who "was" like me, someone who only edits their favorite manga/anime. They can awaken a new interest. Such as goals and drives and cleaning up articles. For example, i detest the original ghost in the Shell manga yet im attempting to fix it.

So i beg....please mention yur reasons against everything i said up to this point. Because if its not a "i dont agree and this is why..." then its a "i silently agree". Thats the only way i cam see a genuine doscussion going on without people trying to worm their way out of it. This includes to this proposal.

Its a workable idea. Its just a mattter of allowing it to set in your mind and finding a way to work. I left it open for a reason so that we can make it work. Not so i do all the work and continue to ask for approval until you are satisfied. There is a way to fix it. In fact i think im getting closer and closer after each issue.

Goodraises idea however i do not. Because it seems like its replacing an aspect we already have without actually replacing it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not even start to presume that people "silently agree" with you. I assure you, if anyone actually agreed with you, they would say it. Trouble is, no one has, so I guess you have to fall back on those that "silently agree". Much of what I didn't respond to I simply wrote off as not needing a response, and really, as the one who brought up the proposal, the onus is on you to prove that we need this welcome/invite, and I am no closer to being convinced as anyone else here.--十八 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything you've written here, so don't count me in the "silently agree" category, even if I don't comment on something. From my perspective, it almost appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing, without any real objection at all. This seems to be your MO in many instances where I've followed a discussion in which you participated. Now, perhaps I'm just reading things wrong, but that's the impression I get whenever you post these huge walls of text and then expect people to refute you point by point. That's a total waste of time and doesn't do anything to help the project. Going back to the topic at hand, if you don't want to participate in the "yellow pages", that's perfectly fine, but please don't read nefarious purposes into something which is only meant to provide a list of people willing to do a particular task. I may not always agree with Goodraise, but I know a useful idea when I see one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the point of my previous comment, but i'll play along. Jihuachi, if you don't agree, then at least say why. If i say that its so i can get a reason out of you. It seems like gaming the discussion by not saying anything about any of the points i made, however you are willing to make your points. Make your points, ignore mine. Like i said, this is the only way i can make it so that people don't worm their way out of a discussions. For some, one may agree with the points i made but still disagree with the idea, making a IJUSTDONTLIKEIT situation more apparent. And those are aware of it. Now i'm not assuming thats the case, however i take this tactic in order to see if they're reasons are genuine or not. As for Nihonjoe, you weren't really part of the discussion, so i can't say the situation fits with you. I'm saying during an active discussion, if one brings up a number points, the other counters them, and the former just mentions more points and ignores the others. I will openly state that if it's not a "no" it's a "yes" so that i get to see why my points were ignored. Because, its the only way a real discussion can come out. And yes, point by point would be productive. Moving to a new point and ignoring previous point is counter-productive. What if you were in my shoes: I make a few points, you mention why those points dont apply, i don't say a word about them, and continue to make new points. Doesn't it feel like i'm trying to worm myself out of a discussion? Its counter-productive, insensetive, and really only rises more questions.

I want to be convinced, i want this to be unanimous with you as in me actually agreeing with everyone. However, its not happening because no one wants to, or thinks they can't convince me, and thats probably because its not a really strong reason not to go against it.

Its alot more than participating in a "yellow pages" for the wikiproject. Its everything Juhachi and Goodraise stood for in their previous discussion and ignoring it here. HOWEVER, this idea is unnecessary as we already have a more direct and easier way of helping and if this idea becomes an actual tool for the Wikiproject, then we will be demoting the other tools we already have that are much more efficient. So i can't just say "i want no part of this, and good luck to you". This proposal will actualy hurt other and better tools we already have. Again, i mention the Clean up task force, and the clean up request we have.

Do you not see my point? This idea is just more specific of what we already have. You guys want to help right? You want to participate on a form of a user request to clean up an article? We already have that, and its better because its public, and others can participate.Lucia Black (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"if you don't agree, then at least say why."

I've given you ample reasons above why I disagree.

This page in a nutshell: "I will openly state that if it's not a "no" it's a "yes""...

Sigh.--十八 22:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

and i openly countered those points. Its a constant cycle of changing the subject for some apparent reason. Why even focus on that? This is ridiculous. I made very GOOD points against your points. Why ignore them?Lucia Black (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just keep it simple. all points were countered, andall points to counter the main idea are "subjective" meaning in one's mind. It's too theoritcal to fall down that path directly. ANd it looks like this Wikiproject is interested more in fishing for others rather than allowing others to fish for themselves.

There is a completely valid reason why i'm against this, and that is the sole fact that we already have something just like it. So it's either one or the other, but not both. ANd i'm leaning toward the clean-up task force/clean up request.Lucia Black (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You are in the clear minority. You think you're right, but the discussion has stalled. I can sympathize with your situation. If I were in your shoes now, I'd only see two viable options. You can either walk away or get more people to comment. It's up to you. Good raise 19:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

sigh....thisis the most common and i find it to be the only wikiproject out of all wikiprojects to do this the most. I may be in the clear minority, but i do not only think i'm right, but i know i'm right. And i know you see my point. But why ignore it? Because, you kknow what i say is true and it will only hurt your argument further if we continue. Thats the reason why Juhachi chose to focus on the "if it's not a no, it's a yes" situation because i was getting closer and closer to a more accepted and fixed idea.

I know this tactic well, because it's been done countless of times in this very wikiproject. It's not a dead horse just yet. I seriously worry for the clean up task force and clean up request area we already have. What do you plan on that? It's a discussion. No one is going to even try responding to that. At least answer that. Look, one thing is to make me out as the minority. Another is to ignore said points. If you feel strongly about this, then mention it. Make it so that your resolve is stronger than mine.Lucia Black (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a very hard time following the discussion (possibly because I haven't cared to go through the welcome tags discussion), and so I don't really know what your points are, Lucia Black. From experience, I know the value of a list of active participants and these participants' skills and specialties. I actually like to know what other editors can do and what they are comfortable with, that way if I needed to ask help from someone with a particular skill set, I know who can do what. As an ~~utterly terrible~~ example, if I needed someone to copy-edit a reception section on a manga article, it would serve me best to ask someone who has experience copy-editing reception sections of any type. I don't think I'd be comfortable asking someone who usually copy-edits military history. The Guild of Copy-Editors is wonderful, but I know that the Guild has a massive backlog and sometimes it's difficult to find a copy-editor that has a experience copy-editing articles through the Guild. I also want to point out that the GOCE (or LOCE) provides something similar to Goodraise's yellow pages here. If I find that I need a copy-editor for a physics article, I can go through the list and contact one of the editors who stated they have experience ce-ing physics. With the cleanup task force, it seems to be that the articles listed there are major projects. With the yellow pages, I can find someone to help with a small task. In addition, the yellow pages has potential to list editors who have experience with very specific tasks. I cannot response to the "us and them" argument because I don't really understand the points being made in this particular thread about that issue. I don't know if that made any sense or was helpful in any way, but in short, I like this yellow pages idea. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

we have a task force, for the clean up which can be general copy editing and even more. No one is understanding the point. The idea is good if we never had the clean up task force and the clean up request. This is just like it, but the difference is that the clean up taskforce/request is for the public for everyone to view and contribute. You ask everyone, without going user talkpage to user talkpage. By accepting this idea, we are also accepting that there is no hope for the clean up task force and the clean up request. All we need to do is promote that instead of mkaing more unnecessary tools that will get in the way of other tools we already have.The us vs them is that people can obuse the system.Lucia Black (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats the reason why Juhachi chose to focus on the "if it's not a no, it's a yes" situation because i was getting closer and closer to a more accepted and fixed idea.

Actually, if you would stop assuming what I'm thinking, I pointed that out to simply show how ridiculous your arguments are. Saying things like:

I may be in the clear minority, but i do not only think i'm right, but i know i'm right.

shows a clear lack of understanding and the inability to see others' arguments as valid, so arguing with you any longer would serve no purpose as long as you have this viewpoint. I don't see why you think we can't have both the yellow pages and the clean up task force, but that's clearly only your viewpoint, so it's not like anyone's going to agree with you. Saying things like:

By accepting this idea, we are also accepting that there is no hope for the clean up task force and the clean up request.

is blowing this so far out of proportion, you've lost all credibility.--十八 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Its just another tool that will get in the way of another helpful tool. The list is only a list for people to contact with specific which i doubt would need the aid of somethig so specific. if they're too specific, then they're probably too small to request to another user. For Example: requesting to fix one sentence or copy edit one. Or maybe just one paragraph. It would be better off doing it yourself right? Sure it may not be perfect, but you'll learn what wording would go better overtime. And this is just one example.

The Clean Up task force/request does't have a limit how specific or how vague the issues are within certain articles. Its just a similar tool that does the exact same thing. The only differece is that one will feel like they accomplished more when they really didn't. Like i said, making this, will demote the task force even further when we should be promoting it so we ca get rid of the backlog and also allow members to feel more confident to make a request. The biggest issue is asking person by person for something that can be shared to everyone. The people choose who they want to edit the articles. So in a sense its WP:OWN without the people on the list realizing. For example, lets say i don't get along with said member, and i need help. i will avoid that member knowing they can do a good job anyways but not the way i want them to do it or they might just fix something that wasn't really wrong to me (hypothetically) so i choose someone who does't really know me enough to deny. That person will only be unintentionally supporting their agenda.

@Juhachi. Does majority mean right and minority means wrong? I don't see it alid for a reason. You continue to chage the idea of he welcome/invite knowing fullwell. Because it's all in theory. And in theory, the proability is quite low for a wikigang to spaw instantly. And even then claiming counter productive when we ave no real basis for it. You just don't have a strong basis for me to accept it as fact. it's all theory among theoy. And simply because you don't agree does't mean i'm the minority (referring to the time you called me a minori because i didn't feel part of the project until i joined). I have plenty of credibility. I gave reasons wy i thought your reasons were subjective and not strong and ultimately invalid. you ignored them. Whats more to say Juhachi?Lucia Black (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking the given subject into consideration, I feel that the the long blocks of text make this discussion incredibly hard to follow and responses to points are getting lost. Additionally, discussion on the project introduction should be addressed in the existing subsection rather than here. Going back to the subject at hand, I would find the breakdown of editor skills to be very useful, languages known being a nice plus. Might be nice to have a note on an editor's activeness. I will also suggest a comprise, potentially incorporate the yellow pages idea into cleanup page. But then again at least for me, I don't like being associated with "cleanup" crew of any project. It rhymes too much with deletionist in my mind so the yellow pages would be nice alternative. Also cleanup is more of a team taking initiative to ensure articles meet minimum project guidelines rather than on providing a network from which editors can draw upon to create better articles. So helping them read/find sources, write better prose, etc., not for inviting onboard as a contributor. AngelFire3423 (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well thats where the argument can be turned around. the list of help may only be one thing to one specific user As many suggested. While, the clean up task force is public and it doesn't give any specific problems. So any problems the number of editors see, they can fix it or add to it. I am willing to think it could be part of the Clean up task force, but let's try not to derive it too much from what it is. The task force merely says that the goal is to improve the quality of an article. Though it does give some likelyhood of it being possibly merged or deleted. And thats probably because of the years people who requested certain articles to be fixed were never really notable in the first place. Also, a network of editors to create better articles? It sounds like a GA or featured nomination and usually done publically on the wikiproject talk page. Again....it's just unnecessary to do.

Lets just look at the clean up task force: there is a request of articles that have certain issues. These are the categories they fall into: Articles to clean up, Articles to copy-edit, Articles needing Plot trimmed, Articles needing wikification, Articles to be merged, Articles needing Verification, Articles needing Expert attention, Articles needing Urgent attention, Articles that need to be split, Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, Articles with a missing image caption, Articles with notability issues, Manga (year of release missing), Video game articles, Featured/Good article rescues. So basically, we have the same idea only instead of public view, it is set to private request. It's just the exact same thing only one believes it's more productive then the other but thats something we choose to do.

let's not second guess the task force simply because one chooses to see the task force as a place for deletionist when it's not, it also doesn't take much too make quality articles, all it just takes some attention. It just seems like those on the list will mean losing the drive to search for articles that need cleaning up and instead will offer help when asked on their talkpage. And that seems much more counter productive. Instead we should be promoting the clean up task force to get rid of the backlog and allow more requests to be done.

Promote the cause, not the members for the cause.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

All I meant to say is that I rather just avoid all the drama I associate with deletionists by avoiding the cleanup taskforce page. AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

im sure there is another place for deleting. But even so if an articled gets afd or suggested to be merged its probably because certain articles arent notable. And alot of them are not notable when it comes to anime and manga. However it would be best to not call people deletionists as it makes it even more obvious that there is an "us vs them" ideology.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You're making a big deal of a insignificant point and misunderstanding what I'm saying. I merely saying that I personally dislike the concept of deletionism and hence I avoid the cleanup subtask. I'm not trying to imply that cleanup is focused on deleting articles, because it's not. Avoiding that taskforce is just one way I deal with my dislike of the concept. AngelFire3423 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I know what youre saying. However its these personal idealogy that affect editing. If more members think like you (which i dont doubt) about a task force, then more unnecessry tooks such as yellow pages will be made just to work around a cencept one "chooses" to believe. What if the taskforce is named "The Repair taskforce".

This is why this discussion was dragged out. Because in the end it was revolving around a personal issue that affects wikipedia negatively.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Where to put it?

Moved it to project space: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yellow pages. Anybody have an idea how to link to it from the main project page? Good raise 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the an box under departments. I also created the talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of link to it would be nice from the main project page. Perhaps even a "Add yourself to the yellow pages!" kind of note as a way to participate in the project? AngelFire3423 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What to list and what not to list in the yellow pages?

I suggest yellow pages focusing only on translation and members that provide resources other members dont usually have access so that it doesnt effect clean up task force/request negatively.Lucia Black (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Made this a new sub-section, as it's a different question. Good raise 04:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who offer foreign language as i doubt one would learn a language just to clean an article. Also maybe those who are subscribed to magazines or other essays that are reliable sources. All of that can be in the yellow pages.

Copy editing, general sourcing and anything members dont have experience but is usually gained through editing should not be in as in the yellow.pages. that way members will continue to edit if their is something that cant be helped such as not speaking the language or not understandind the source they jave or not having access to a source.Lucia Black (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also that would be the only way "yellow pages" can trully be independent.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS modification concerning songs

I'm not osting this on the MOS subpage because it doesn't look like anyone really chcks that out, but I've been seeing a lot of issues with this lately so I'm going to bring it up here.

For quite some itme now, whenever I go to an article on an anime I have just heard about, I see that the theme song section uses the literal translations of the song titles as the title of the song itself. This is not how any of the song titling manuals of style state should be done (see WP:SONG). As this seems to be a mistaken common practice on anime pages (or at least on pages edited by a small group of editors who aren't aware of the other manuals of style), I believe a reminder should be put on this page that states that the literal translation is not allowed to be used as the song title, unless the song is known (in reliable sources and not the fandom's misunderstanding) by a translated title (ex. "A Cruel Angel's Thesis", "Genesis of Aquarion (song)", etc.).—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's easily solved by changing {{nihongo}} to {{nihongo3}}, which is what I use anytime when there is no official translation. You may still need to add quotation marks around the rōmaji parameters. —Farix (t | c) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that song titles should never be italicized.--十八 10:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that the WP:MOS stated that foreign terms or phrases that are uncommon in English should always be italicized. —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's a song name should takes precedence over the fact that it has Japanese words in it. Here's a GA example: Aki Toyosaki#Discography. It's name of a song something and the italics make it look like it's something else. AngelFire3423 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AngelFire. This is how I've always done it so that it doesn't conflict with the italicizing of albums.--十八 23:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall exactly where but I do remember reading somewhere that if there's no official translation editors are free to give their own translations of song titles, though the actual title should still be present. AngelFire3423 (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't limited to song titles. Proper nouns generally shouldn't be replaced by literal translations (as opposed to "official" "translations"). I suppose this is a problem in particular with articles within the scope of this project because literal translations are often taken from scanlations and fansubs and inserted into articles for the most part by editors who can neither speak nor read Japanese. Good raise 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Diffuse or non-diffuse main categories.

At present, Category:Manga series, Category:Anime series, Category:Anime OVAs, and Category:Anime ONAs are non-diffuse categories that list includes every article for that type of medium and are automatically added by the infobox templates. But when I requested at WP:BOTR that the categories be manually included so that the auto-categorization can be removed from the templates can comply with WP:TEMPLATECAT, there was an objection that the categories should be diffused based on the by year cats for both manga and anime instead. However, at least for the anime year by cats, they make no distinctions based on the media format of the release while Category:Anime series, Category:Anime OVAs, Category:Anime ONAs, and Category:Anime films are categories based on the media format. Thus a category like Category:2012 anime would contain articles on television series, OVAs, ONAs, and films, though the latter is being diffused into Category:2012 anime films.

However, some of the advantages of non-diffused categories is that they are much easier to monitor and perform cleanup operations when combined with the advanced search options, such as this one for "seiyu" in Category:Anime series. Something that would be much more tedious with the year by categories. (On a side note, pages have to be directly categorized instead of transcluded from a template in order for the incategory: parameter to work properly.)

The the question is, do we want to keep Category:Manga series, Category:Anime series, Category:Anime OVAs, Category:Anime ONAs, and Category:Anime films as non-diffuse categories or diffuse them based on the year by categories or some other scheme? —Farix (t | c) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I find having the by-year categories to be very helpful if I want to find out about other series which were from the same time frame as something else. I suppose we could create a list by year instead of by-year categories, but I think that might require more work to maintain. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I votw by year aswell. It may be more diffficult but it seems easier to navigate.Lucia Black (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer the question of whether the five main cats should remain non-diffused with the year by cats as supplements or whether the year by cat will completely diffuse the main cats (meaning that no articles will be in the main cats). —Farix (t | c) 01:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

anime, manga, ova, ona by year as non-diffuse.Lucia Black (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have power again, (stupid Sandy-produced snowstorm) let me create an outline for the year-by categories

"year" anime films (already exists, Top level categories may need renaming)
- "year" anime television films (Do we really have enough to justify splitting off these articles into a separate cat? And should TV specials be included as well?)
"year" anime television series (WP:DIFFUSEd category containing the following two categories. Perhaps something similar to Category:Years in Japanese television. Will also commandeer the four existing Anime series by decade categories with renaming and Category:Anime series itself may be renamed to Category:Anime television series)
- "year" anime television series debuts (subcat of Category:"year" Japanese television series debuts)
- "year" anime television series endings (subcat of Category:"year" Japanese television series endings)
"year" anime OVAs (possibly include ONAs as well. Not exactly sure about the overall name as it is redundant. Perhaps '"year" direct-to-video anime' which is the English-language equivalent)
- Alternatively, we can further split the categories into '"year" anime OVA films' and '"year" anime OVA series' or other English-language equivalent.

Still I don't think there is a consensus to diffuse Category:Manga series, Category:Anime series, Category:Anime OVAs, and Category:Anime ONAs. Only that those articles should be placed in those categories in addition to the year-by categories. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There appears to be a consensus to create by year categories, but no consensus to diffuse the current ones. I suggest going with that. Diffusing can still be done later. (Personally I have no opinion on the matter. Categorization doesn't interest me much.) Good raise 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

i attempted to imply to diffuse the ones that arent done by year.Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Couple of proposals

I was thinking we should make a separate Tab for an organized list of links to Reliable Source list, other task forces such as the cleanup task force and other resourves so we can take account for those who have accessibility issues. This will probably lead to removing the clean up tab.

On a lighter note. The ideology of inclusionist vs exclusionist (saviors vs deletionist) ideology tends to run all over wikipedia. I suggest we rename the clean up task force to the repair task force so no one can assume theres a concept of that in the task force and allow a more welccoming environment.Lucia Black (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone?Lucia Black (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly cannot make heads or tails of the first proposal. I also don't understand how the inclusionist or exclusionist ideologies are involved with the name of the cleanup task force. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

the first proposal is to help with accessibility issues if any one has that. The second is to help inclusionists be part of the cleanup taskforce as some believe "cleanup" rhymes with "exclusionists". Some have chosen to avoid the taskforce for that very reason. To help avoid that, i suggest to rename it "repair" to make it seem like its not all about rwmoving content or deleting articles.Lucia Black (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I admire your optimism, but merely changing the name of the cleanup task force is not going to magically make people who were not interested in it before interested in it now. It seems like you're suggesting to "trick" users into thinking the cleanup task force is something it's not, which is not good practice.--十八 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

think about it. If members believe "clean up" rhymes with "exclusionists". And how am i tricking those members into thinking the task force is something else? I even think repair is even more accurate than clean up. And im not saying it will "magically" but "gradually". Its to help avoid anyone to believe this is made up of exclusionists.

Any opinion on the first proposal?Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The only group of people that would believe that "cleanup" is a synonym or code for "exclusionism" are already extremists on the issue and would be very difficult to work with, so we shouldn't worry about them.

As for adding a sources tab at the top of the project pages (if I understand your proposal), I would suggest reorganizing the entire reference library first to link everything together. Otherwise, you give the impression that only online source are acceptable. We may even be able to ditch those tabs altogether with an overhaul of the project's infobox. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to help them not believe it is about opposing extremist. As for reorganizing what would you have in mind?.Lucia Black (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

everything that is the infobox holds hidden that cant be accessed completely by all. So either we kep the tabs and remove the infobox or make it so the infobox isnt hidden and remove the tabs. What should we do?Lucia Black (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comic Holms RS check

Can we get some of your Japanese language experts to check out the following website as a potential reliable source?

http://comich.net/

If it checks out, it could be useful for serialization dates for the more recent manga series. —Farix (t | c) 14:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. But you can consider for more to check it out.--Bumblezellio (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't find anything about this site reliable. It says on its about page that it's operated entirely by one person who is independent of Hakusensha. Are there any instances of this website being used by reliable sources?--十八 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be great if you let us in on your reasoning. What makes it reliable? Or, to put it in more plain language, why should we believe anything the site says? Good raise 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate articles for multiple parts of a franchise

I've thought for a long time that the portion of WP:MOSAM that says "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise . . ." makes no sense and flies in the face of how all other fictional works are handled on Wikipedia. For works other than anime and manga, if there are multiple notable works in the franchise, they always get separate articles, frequently with an additional article covering the whole franchise. You would never see a notable (non-manga) comic book and its notable television cartoon adaptaion covered in a single article, or a notable novel and its notable film adapation in a single article. I'm personally of the opinion that WP:MOSAM should instead say something along the lines of "In general, if multiple works within a franchise are notable and enough can be written about each to support separate articles, then separate articles should be created for each of those works . . .". I've seen the arguement that having multiple articles like I'm suggesting would lead to a lot of redundancy, but I don't think that arguement is convincing. Any production and reception information would be different between two articles. One of the sections that often would be redundant is a list of characters, but that is easily handled by the characters being listed in their own article (which is how characters are often listed anyway). Basically, the only portion of articles on two works in a franchise that would really be redundant is the plot summary, but that should be a relatively small portion of a well-written article, and a little redundancy seems fine (certainly it is tolerated for other media besides anime/manga). I understand this would be a big change from what we've been doing for a long time, but I wanted to see if there might be any support for it (other than from me). Calathan (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What articles are you referring to? I used Harry Potter as a reference which often as video games and movie articles spun off of them; but having separate articles for films and video games are a norm if it has enough content. From your suggestion, I'm assuming that you want something like Dragon Ball having its animation split into its own article due to the amount of reception and production information that exists for its anime adaption? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the only example of this I can think of is our articles on the Nanoha series. We have one for the franchise, as well as one for each season (I think) and for the three main characters, as well as of course our articles on the different parts of the Pokémon franchise. But those are exceptions, and not the rules. As for the proposal itself? I oppose. Why? One article for the whole franchise should be enough unless the franchise's spin-offs are notable on their own. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with what Calathan is proposing. I was around back when a lot of series had separate articles for each media type, divided by manga, anime, OVA, film, novel, you name it; and it was a complete mess! So it was decided to consolidate the information into as little articles as possible, organizing most of the information into a main article, and splitting off various list articles (characters, chapters, episodes, etc) or other such notable topics (films and some video games). It's easier to organize the series' information into a single main article, and it's easier for readers to find the information they want that way.

And regarding Nanoha, it certainly has it's problems. For instance, two of the manga have separate articles, but don't establish separate notability to have their own articles. And the series article is largely a re-hash of info found on the three main series' articles in regards to the plot info in the overview section, and the media info already found in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A's and Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha Strikers. Not to mention all the separate character articles that don't show notability either; didn't we just go through and create a whole new List of Tenchi Muyo! characters? The series article should be deleted, and the character articles should be merged together.--十八 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I do want to note that I don't really write much article content, so my opinion should probably count less than someone who is actually writing the articles (since what I'm proposing would involve a lot of work that I wouldn't be the one doing). However, it makes no sense to me that, for example, WikiProject Halo is able to write a good or featured article not merely on the games in their franchise, but also many of the secondary and tertiary pieces of the franchise like soundtracks and novels, while we don't even want people to try writing articles for many of the major pieces of franchises we cover. While I understand things were a mess before we merged our articles together, I think that was a combination of people writing articles on non-notable portions of franchises and people just doing a poor job of writing articles, and that merging everything together was an overreaction. I personally think the organization of the Nanoha franchise is exactly what we should strive for, with a series article giving a summary of all the media in the franchise and then each individually notable portion having an article that goes into more detail about that portion of the franchise (though note that several of the Nanoha articles are of low quality right now . . . I'm talking about the organization, not the current execution). I completely disagree with Juhachi's notion that it is bad to have a summary of all the media in a franchise article and then cover those media in more detail in separate articles. Anyone who wants an overview of all the content can go to the series article, and then if they want the details on a certain portion they click the link from there to a specific portion of the franchise. Note that having a bunch of non-notable character articles isn't in any way related to what I'm suggesting, as I'm in total agreement that articles on non-notable subtopics should be merged into a list or parent topic. Calathan (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a single main article cannot be the "franchise" article. Besides, you say " a series article giving a summary of all the media in the franchise and then each individually notable portion having an article that goes into more detail about that portion of the franchise", but this is basically what we already do. Look at Shakugan no Shana for one example. The entire franchise is summarized in one main "franchise" article, with sections on the individual media types including light novels, manga, anime, and video games. There are three branch list articles that go into "more detail about that portion of the franchise" (your words). There is absolutely no reason to split off the different media types into their own articles when they can be organized into a single article. This is basically why we have our current organization of media in articles: There used to be "franchise" or "series" articles which listed all the media that a series contained (manga, anime, novels, films, games, etc) and then separate articles about each one. What we basically did was take the summary of the media in the franchise article, and merged it together into a single article to improve readability. Why would we even need a Shakugan no Shana (series) article when all the information in such an article is already listed at Shakugan no Shana#Media?--十八 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I support having separate articles if there is enough content and enough reliable sources to support it. If not, then keeping them in one article is best. I think the MOSAM should encourage separate articles when those two criteria are met, and discourage it when they are not met. This is in-line with WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not like I disagree with this proposal either, but like I said above, having a separate "franchise" or "series" article is pointless when all such pertinent information can go into the media section of a single main article on the series, as in Shakugan no Shana, Cardcaptor Sakura, Tokyo Mew Mew, etc.--十八 22:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we make a franchise article in addition to also keeping the article about the inital work as a parent article for the whole franchise. Instead, I think the franchise article should be the one that covers the whole franchise, and there should be an additional article about any individually notable works in the franchise. That is how the rest of Wikipedia seems to do things. Note that the franchise article doesn't necessarily need the word "franchise" in its name (other articles seem inconsistent on that, e.g.Star Wars vs. Die Hard (franchise)). I think being consistant with how other fictional works are handled on Wikipedia would be better than doing things are own way, unless there is a very strong reason why we should be different (which I don't think there is). Taking Shakugan no Shana as an example, I'm not proposing we add an additional article covering the whole franchise as well as keeping the one that already covers the whole franchise, but instead the article we currently have should be rewritten so that it more explicitly is about the franchise (e.g. instead of starting with "Shakugan no Shana . . . is a Japanese light novel series . . .", it would start with "Shakugan no Shana . . . is a franchise consisting of Japanese light novels, anime, manga . . ."). Instead of having List of Shakugan no Shana light novels, we could have Shakugan no Shana (light novel series), which would include not only the list of light novels, but details on the production and reception of the light novel series (in more detail than would be covered in the parent article). Likewise, instead of having List of Shakugan no Shana episodes, we could have Shakugan no Shana (anime) which would include details on the production and reception of the anime, as well as the episode list (or a link to the episode list if it is too long to go in in the article itself). I think for a franchise like Shakugan no Shana, both the franchise as a whole and the individual parts of that franchise (i.e. the light novels, the anime, and perhaps the manga) are notable subjects that each warrent their own article (and no, I don't think a list of episodes is the same as having a full article about the anime). Calathan (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Though again I want to mention that I'm not volunteering to do this work myself, and want to say I appreciate all the work that people have put into writing these articles (regardless of how they are organized). Calathan (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"That is how the rest of Wikipedia seems to do things."

That appears to be the whole bases of your argument. However, what works for one area of Wikipedia may not, in fact probably won't, work for other areas. One of the reasons that other areas of Wikipedia may have separate articles on various aspects is because they have an abundance of information that is unique to a particular sub-section that would justify such a split. But you don't see very often with anime and manga related article. Part of the reason is that anime producers don't take the broad liberties with the source material that you often see outside Japan (where playing fast and loose with the source material is the norm). Thus the only thing that would be "unique" between an anime and a manga article would be the reception. And those sections aren't very big to justify a split in the first place. The only reason I can see having separate articles is when an anime series is adapted from video games. That is because the video game is not going to have a definitive plot line (because the plot line is determined by the player's choices/actions) and descriptions of game play and extras would relegate information about the anime adaptation to minor coverage. —Farix (t | c) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that only the reception would be different, as the production and anything other than the plot and characters would be expected to be different. Anyway, I'm not saying things should be split when there is nothing more to write, but the current guidelines discourage trying to split things even when there would be plenty to write about. For instance, Dragonball GT comes to mind as something that doesn't have its own article even though the plot is entirely original to the anime, aspects of the production are different (e.g. who wrote the story, since it wasn't Akira Toriyama?), the reception is vastly different, it features several new major characters, etc. Basically, people just don't even try to write additional articles because they know someone will come along and merge them due to the guideline, even when there actually is plenty to write about. Again, I'm not saying we try to split things when they can't reasonably be split, but instead that the guideline should allow for separate articles on both a work and its adaptations when someone has found enough information to write additional articles. Calathan (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with such an approach would be like this. Do each series in a franchise have individual notability? Obviously the franchise as a whole is notable. The problem will be the individual series. Take Shakugan no Shana for example. Since the manga and anime are just adaptations of the original light novels and do not deviate too far when it comes to the plot, separate articles will be redundant. And besides, the development of the individual series is still affected by the "mother" series (aka the original) so any development about adaptations can safely go in the main article. About the only thing that would be different would be the reception, and even then, is it justifiable to have separate articles just for the reception? And finally, do we even have enough material to write about to justify having separate articles for adaptations? It works for franchises like Pokémon since the manga, anime, and even trading card games are at most only loosely based on the original video games (especially in the case of the anime) and more or less have original stories, but more importantly because each adaptation receives enough significant coverage and individual notability to have articles in their own right. But for series like Nanoha, Shana and Haruhi? Except in the case of movies, absolutely not. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The notability guidelines have absolutely nothing to do with how close an adaptation is to the original. And again, I'm saying separate articles should be allowed when there is enough to write about. Maybe such cases would be rarer than I think they would be, but disallowing them even when there is enough to write additional articles seems like the wrong way to go to me. About the series you list, for Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha in particular there are a lot of works which aren't adaptations of each other, and I don't see any reason why they can't each have their own article if there has been enough coverage of each one (again, only if there has been enough coverage to write separate articles). Calathan (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

But you see, that's just it; most spin-off series are not notable enough to deserve their own articles, including all of the Nanoha manga and novels (at least at this time). Therefore, it's pointless to have a franchise article (or media list, as once also existed within this project) that merely exists as a link repository to the family of Nanoha-related articles when only a few of them even deserve to have their own articles, which at this point, I only really see as Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha which could be rewritten to incorporate the material from both Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A's and Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha Strikers (which are both little more than stubs); the various list articles would stay, and the two manga articles I listed above would likely be merged/deleted for lacking notability. Add to that the merger of the character articles into the character list, and you're left with one main article, Triangle Heart and three lists; hell, a manga chapter list could also be created, too.--十八 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I really think you are missing the point of what I am saying. Maybe I erred in trying to present a hypothetical example using a real series. I didn't mean to be arguing that various portions of the Nanoha franchise should have articles in the real world, but was presenting a hypothetical case for if, emphasis on the if, the portions of the franchise were each independently notable with enough separate information to support articles, then in that hypothetical case they should have separate articles. Pointing out that one series, or a bunch of series, or even most series can't support more articles seems like a straw man arguement to me, since I'm not talking about series that can't support more articles, but instead am talking about series that can support more articles. We may be in disagreement on how many such series there are, but regardless of how many such series there are, I think the guideline should be changed so that whatever series can support more articles can get more articles, as I think that would be a better presentation of the information than how we currently do things. Calathan (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not entirely different from how things are already done, though. Yes, the guideline discourages editors from creating spin-off articles, but for a good reason that we seem to agree on, WP:N. In exceptional cases, a user may create a spin-off if it is notable enough to deserve a separate article, and this in no way is explicitly banned in the guideline. That is why the guideline starts with "In general..." to make sure the editor knows that it is only in certain cases, and is the exception, not the rule. I disagree with rewriting the guideline in the way you proposed because it might incite users to create articles that are not notable and shouldn't be split, and I don't see why a franchise/series article to summarize a franchise is necessary in most cases; this does not mean I disagree with all cases, as Neon Genesis Evangelion seems to work pretty well (though it needs some serious cleanup, to be sure), to name one example.--十八 02:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)