Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60

WikiProject Pokedex

FYI, someone has proposed to create a Pokemon Index project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pokédex . As Pokemon is an animanga topic, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there was one at one time. I forget the name of it, though. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex, which redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I dont see the pont of two projects with the same scope and cause.Lucia Black (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be something wrong with the animanga infoboxes

Parameters like "network_other" and "publisher_other" don't seem to work. Have they been deprecated, or is this a bug of some sort? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The XXX_other parameters have been obsolete for nearly two years now because if issues of usability, sourcing, and general vandalism. In fact, we have an entire cleanup category specifically for this. Contents of the parameters should be moved into the article as prose WITH accompanying references. However, if they cannot be sourced, then they should be removed. —Farix (t | c) 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I've gone ahead and simply removed the aforementioned parameters from some of the affected articles. The problem is that, in the process, some info has to go (Animax has a presence in several countries, not just Southeast Asia or South Africa). TheFarix, may you update the English anime network parameters so that it may include countries like Hong Kong or India? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I tend to remove them when I'm doing other updates. As for Hong Kong and India, I'll have to look up their two digit ISO codes. However, are there series that airs in just India and not in the rest of South Asia via Animax Asia? —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure, but I think I came across at least one example of that very scenario. Just in case, it would probably be best to add parameters for India, Hong Kong, and probably every country where Animax has a presence. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Anime News Network encyclopedia links for singers

Are Anime News Network encyclopedia links acceptable as external links for singers? They're acceptable for voice actresses such as Ayana Taketatsu, Aki Toyosaki, Haruka Tomatsu and Kana Hanazawa, but what about singers like LiSA or Mami Kawada whose primary work is performing theme songs for anime? Is an ANN link acceptable? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All ANN encyclopedia are unreliable. Only their News updates and maybe individiual articles are reliable.Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, what I mean is, it is acceptable to link to the ANN encyclopedia under the "External links" section? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it is. Several articles already do it.Lucia Black (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be careful. One might argue that most, if not all, animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php links violate WP:ELNO#1. Goodraise 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
ANN links on articles about anime and manga are fine because those pages will contain a greater about of detail about the staff and cast as well as links to news articles about the work. However, biographies have always been a little sketchy because there isn't much additional details on those pages than is typically in the biographical article. I think the same can be said for links to IMDb links as well. However, a Featured Article is not going to contain an extensive filmography/voiceography, bibliography, or discography even if a Stub or a Start typically does to establish notability. So I don't think it would be a problem. —Farix (t | c) 12:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return and Episode of Bardock

For some reason these short films are being listed as OAVs. These films are not OAVs on the grounds that they were shown at festivals before they were release to the home video market. Plus, the Episode of Bardock started out as as a three chapter manga story and was later adapted. I've edited the template to reflect that they were festival films a few times, but somebody keeps reverting it. Is their any official website that has officially classified them as such, or is this just fan assumption? Sarujo (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories on redirects for films, OVAs, etc.

For several years, I've been adding categories to redirects from the titles of various films to their main topic articles in order to make it easier for people to find those articles. Additionally, in order to keep the number of categories on the main article to a bare minimum, I have added release year categories to those redirects so the redirect will appear in the category and then allow people to click it to go to the main article. This is a very good thing for series which have very long release periods (Urusei Yatsura, Doraemon, Cream Lemon, Kinnikuman, etc.) As I mentioned above, this keeps us from having 10 or 20 release year categories on these articles (not always that many, but some series have been released over 20+ years), and it's more precise by giving people the exact name of the title released in that year rather than just the series name.

I mention this because Farix has been removing these as he cleans up the anime by release year categories. I think we should keep the release year cats with the redirects for the reasons mentioned above. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it more of a problem. If we add them to redirects, it would complicate the list more. Category should help for existing articles, not redirects.Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Participants of this discussion might find Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects useful. Goodraise 01:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I seriously have to question categorizing each episode in an OVA seires. Cream Lemon in particularly only consists of 6 series. So why place all 44 episodes into a year by category? Should all 20 Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki episodes (or any mutli-episode OVAs) get similar treatment? Doraemon already has an article of each of its annual films, so that is a non-starter. The Kinnikuman and Urusei Yatsura films can probably be split into separate articles as nationally released theatrical films are presumed notable. The 13 Urusei Yatsura OVAs are more problematic, but coverage of them is so minimum (just their titles and year of release) so a capitalized categorized redirect doesn't serve any purpose. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
i agree with Farix.Lucia Black (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Tenchi Muyo OVA episodes were actually real episodes, and (using the example you gave) of Cream Lemon episodes have nothing to do with each other (with a few exceptions). The redirects for these and others help show what was actually released in those years, and the redirects, when clicked in the category lists, take you directly to the article. I find it much better and more useful to have the actual titles of what was released to be listed in a specific by-year category than to have the main series title listed in multiple categories. The latter does nothing to help people know what they are seeing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
but then it wouldnt lead them to what the category was supposed to. It would lead them to the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies FA push

Hi, guys. There's a discussion regarding a possible push for FA on the Grave of the Fireflies article with the intention of putting it up as TFA on April 16, 2013. The discussion is at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#FA?. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

B-Class help

Would like some help reviewing Ghost in the Shell to see if it is B-Class or not. The discussion is here. It would really be great to get some reviews here.Lucia Black (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Kotoko (singer)

Well, since Kotoko (singer) has a big BLP sources tag on top, I can't request a peer review of it. Just asking for comments on how the article can still be improved. If more sources are found, the article can potentially become C-class, but where can I find such sources? Even her Japanese article lacks sources. Any suggestions on how content can be improved? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Anime News Network has lots of coverage of her that could be used to improve the article. Her encyclopedia page there should link to all the news stories and articles about her (note that, by default, I think it only shows articles that have been verified by a staff member, so most of the articles are hidden - put your mouse next to where it says "News" and "Other articles" and you should be able to get it to show all the articles). Here are some of those news stories and articles that might be useful: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Calathan (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources. They proved quite useful. As I've now removed the BLP sources tag per the sources found, I've (pun intended) put it up for peer review. Any input is welcome. Thanks again. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Chaos;Head, Steins;Gate, Robotics;Notes character list split

I would like to ask for additional input at Talk:Steins;Gate whether the article's character section, Chaos;Head's, and Robotics;Notes' should be split into a separate list called List of Science Adventure series characters (or something along the lines). This is so that each article can avoid listing the same characters multiple times and *cough*Nae end*cough*. Any opinions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- クラウド６６８ 09:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

List of manga

There is current a discussion taking place about the title List of manga. This was originally a list article, but since a 2007 AfD has been a redirect to List of manga licensed in English. The redirect has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1#List of manga, and your input into the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One Piece episode naming discussion

Heads up everyone! There is a discussion whether we should use Hody vs Hordy in the List of One Piece episodes (season 15) article The discussion can be found at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 15)#Hordy vs Hody. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Original Ranma episode number 46

Hi - Please, were is Ranma [original ep number]#46 in your episode list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.140.109 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Ranma ½ episodes (season 4)#ep46. Goodraise 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell GAN

Im considering ghost in the shell for GA nomination but i have never made one and i would ask an informal review before actually nominating it. You can put your input here: talk:Ghost in the Shell#GAN? . Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.Lucia Black (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

well i just nominated it, the silent treatment here, i find slightly annoying, but for the good of the article, please help me out here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Chu2koi question

I edited the English translation for "Regardless of My Adolescent Delusions of Grandeur, I Want a Date!" to read "Even People With Adolescent Delusions of Grandeur Want to Fall In Love," which is, I believe, a super translation, reflecting the Japanese original meaning much better. (The subject is not expressed in Japanese, so changing it to "I want.." is not good, and the idea of 恋をしたい is not well expressed as "I want a date.") My edit was changed back, and I'm trying to understand why. Was it done through some automated means, or was it the standard "elitist Wikipedia editor not allowing any change they don't personally like"? Also if there's a better way to address this issue than editing this "Talk" page please let me know. This process is terribly opaque and adds to my perception expressed in the previous sentence.

After living in Japan for 21 years and speaking the language fluently, I believe I am qualified to make edits to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppayne (talk •contribs) 03:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems the reasoning was because the official TBS website translated it was "Regardless...I want a Date!" on their English site right here. The project tends to go with the most official translation even if it's not the most accurate as that is most likely to be the translation that is most commonly used in English (see: Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, the Article names and disambiguation section), and TBS is the most official at the moment? (Okay, I'm not sure on TBS being most official.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Article in question is Chūnibyō Demo Koi ga Shitai!. The best solution is generally editing the talk page of the article in question and discussing with fellow editors. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Straying from original topic (sorry)
Pardon me if I seem a bit nosy, but do you happen to be Peter Payne, owner of J-List? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, and he wrote about the Wikipedia edit on the J-List blog. When I saw it, I figured I'd check out the page to see what had become of it, since I knew Wikipedia isn't fond of people changing stuff to what they know is more correct without sources to back it up.--75.92.61.32 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot of people in the world who think they know things, when they actually don't. How are we to decide? We listen to reasonable arguments and we look at what respectable sources have to say about the matter. When people want things on Wikipedia to change, they'll actually have to invest the time it takes to do things our way. Goodraise 04:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well in that case, I'm slightly concerned that things like this might happen again in the future. I'd suggest adding a {{Connected contributor}} to the talk page, in light of WP:COI. Not that I have anything against Peter Payne (sometimes he provides a good read in the things he writes), but as we all know, policy is policy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you actually see anything wrong about that edit? Mind WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Goodraise 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor}} doesn't mean that an editor has done something wrong. It is simply there to point out that there may be potential for a COI to occur, and that editors should tread lightly. It's reasonable to have the template in articles where an editor is known to have connections with the topic; see Raspberry Pi, Larry Sanger, John Romero, Asia Carrera and others. We're not anticipating bad behaviour - it's merely a "for your information" tool. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine, put it there, if that'll make you happy. But in all likelihood, it'll be just as much a waste of time of anyone who reads it there, as this off-topic discussion is here. Goodraise 07:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Calm down, I was merely making a suggestion. I don't mind if you don't. It's up to everyone else to decide, since it's not my call, and I won't lose my hair over it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway Ppayne, although I can understand where you're coming from, I don't believe that the editor who reverted your edit did so in bad faith. If you really like, you could even send him a personal message asking him about it, after all, you might be able to get some consensus between you two. However, I think that your line "elitist Wikipedia editor not allowing any change they don't personally like" is somewhat of a misunderstanding - we're not here to make you feel bad for your edits, it's just that users who have been here for a long time have a strong affinity for standard procedure. For instance, per Wikipedia policy we generally only accept additions that are verifiable, cited with reliable sources, are notable, have a neutral POV, et cetera, and things that might stray from policy tend to get plucked by various editors, despite that these edits may or may not be done in good faith. Don't take things the wrong way, that person might not have intended it that way. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gundam lists

Alot of the Gundam lists we have are 100% unreferenced and are allplot full of fancruft, if nobody objects I would propose getting rid of them. Some of the canadates:

So the question is do we really need all these lists, all of them are unreferenced and have been for awhile, are all plot something that wikipedia is not plus full of fancruft, and have no evidence of notability. I understand if there were on wikia but dont see why they should be on wikipedia. Keep in mind yes Gundam is a cool classic anime but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep these around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would expect the lists of mobile weapons/mobile suits to be significantly different than the other topics in terms of notability, both in real life and in the fictional universe. My understanding is that the Gundam franchise makes a lot of its money by selling models of the mobile suits. I would think there would be coverage of them out there somewhere, though I personally don't know where to look. They also seem more significant to the understanding of the topic, since to a large degree Gundam really is about the mobile suits (i.e. they are a big part of the reason people watch and enjoy the franchise). I'd consider those lists to be kind of like character lists, which are normally kept based on the rationale that they are essential to understanding the larger topic (even if each individual character isn't notable). I wouldn't rush to nominate them for deletion, at least not without having someone with access to Japanese sources make a thorough search for more sources. On the other hand, articles like the lists of technology and lists of spacecraft do seem like the sort of plot details that don't belong on Wikipedia. Those topics are much less important to the understanding of the larger subject of the Gundam series, and have less real-world significance, so they do seem like appropriate topics to nominate for deletion. Calathan (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggest merging the mobile weapons/suits pages with the Gundam models article which details product history. AngusWOOF (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that makes sense. While they make a lot of money selling models of the mobile suits, they aren't primarily models, but elements of TV series. Plus, if all the different mobile suit lists were merged into one article, it would be much too long and convoluted. Calathan (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem of the notability check here is that all of the mobile weapons appeared in a lot of different publications individually and separately, but each of these appearances are comparatively minor to the publications even if it is secondary. FYI, that's actually third party sources of the entire Universal Century Mobile Suit Weapons collection that describe the weapons these MS' carry, and business model book of Gundam about how these Mobile Weapons work within each said series. The problem is just that Wikipedia's so call consensus are just becoming increasingly unfriendly and I just don't care about all these anymore. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Im fine with things being sourced with good sources and I understand that Gundam has a fanbase but the line has to be drawn somewhere as Gundam has become stretched out in scope, wikipedia is not a plot summary of things. As for consensus im sorry you feel that way, if you do want these kept or merged though just say so, if you can find sources it would be great =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass vandelism???

Resolved
 – See ANI thread.

User:Aakeem00 has been hitting all naruto list and changing it to my english airdate and changing the dates i think i seen on the one piece talk to that he doimg it there i dnt want to hit rollback on this unless other agree it vandelismAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that his/her userpage is a virtual if not direct copy of Naruto references and all. That likely should be changed.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
One the topic on hand I see no reason to us my English release date since it does not appear to make any sense. Unless something is being missed I see no reason for it and believe that it should be reverted.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Same thing with One Piece under a different user name: User:Aakeem077. This needs to be taken to WP:ANI right away. Goodraise 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
At least that Naruto copy is gone.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

My Darling Is a Foreigner title

Hi! I posted a comment for discussion on Talk:My Darling Is a Foreigner not long ago. The title has a couple of somewhat odd issues (the "official English title" used on the Japanese and Hong Kong posters doesn't use any capitalization) and I'm not sure how to deal with it by myself, so I haven't directly made a move request. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FLCL episode list merge.

There is currently a discussion at FLCL on whether the ffeatured list should be merged. I personally dont think it should be merged but consensus is leaning toward merge. It would be great to have more comments.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I replied, no need to nix quality for quantity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

SAO reception

Resolved
 – There appears to be agreement to keep the Kotaku reception. Re-added.

So Down3 (talk · contribs) keeps removing the Kotaku reception from Sword Art Online. He says that, "this is basically the point of view of one specific person, which is not what you want to see on a neutral encyclopedia. That might have been ok if said person was some kind of reference authority in animation production, but as it is it's just a website american chronicler, whose usual topic of talk isn't even animation, therefore you can't even say it represents the american community reception." Nevertheless, is the Kotaku reception valid, or is he right? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

They are a reliable source used for anime and video games. Also i dont see how he's right. One review wont change the nuetrality of the article unless the user adding the reviews are avoiding a certain group of them. And even then thats not the reviewers fault, its the editor for deliberately avoiding to add in more sources. So no he isnt right. Im not even sure what he meant specifically.Lucia Black (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
So it is fine to restore the reception? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe so.Lucia Black (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, too, as long as Leofighter's criticism of the source as not usually conversant with anime isn't actually valid. All third-party reviews are "the point of view of one specific person" (except in the case of "duo" reviewers like Siskel and Ebert, of course), by definition, and it's routine to include them in sections on reviews and critical reception for works like this, as long as they are regarded as notable. WP:RS is not actually an issue when it comes to reviews (there is no fact to challenge, other than "Did this reviewer actually write this?", I suppose), but whether the offline or online publication is notable enough to be influential and well-read is important in the context. No one could give a hoot what a reviewer in the Clovis News Journal of the town of Clovis, New Mexico, had to say about a film (other than perhaps one produced or filmed on-location there), but what a reviewer in the Boston Globe said is considerably more significant. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there seems to be an agreement here I readded the section. We will have to see if the user in question decides to remove it again.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)--70.49.81.44 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So I guess this is resolved now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be unless the other user decides to remove it again though in that case stronger actions may need to be taken.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bolding of major roles

 – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is a RfC open at WT:Manual of Style#Bolding of major roles that addresses the boldfacing of the "major" roles played by anime actors in articles on those actors. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus has been reached, I wonder if there is a bot that can remove all the bold "Important roles" for the articles on people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually the RfC hasn't been closed yet, but yes, it's getting pretty cold there. Actually, I think AutoWikiBrowser should be good enough, but I'm not sure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and de-bolded roles from some articles. Work is still incomplete, so any help is appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

De-bolding of roles

Although the RfC I started over at WT:MOS hasn't been closed yet, the consensus already appears to be quite clear. As such, I have boldly de-bolded leading roles from a number of articles (such as Hiroshi Kamiya, Jun Fukuyama, Megumi Hayashibara and Harumi Sakurai). Nevertheless, this is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process, so any extra help, whether by editors or bots, is appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the bolding should go, but I think more prose should probably be added to articles describing major roles. Obviously that would be even more work than just removing the bolding, but I think it would improve the articles. Calathan (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I agree this needs to be coupled with adding more prose, and should get a lot of the voice actor articles out of stub-class. Got lots of voice actors to clean up. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Shinma from Vampire Princess Miyu

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Shinma is on the merge list and I was wondering if anyone here was fimilar with the anime, are the Shima major characters? If so which should be included in a possible split off character list (List of Vampire Princess Miyu characters)? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the TV series, they generally take the role of "monster of the week". Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So are they good merge targets for the characters page, or should the article be put up for AfD as very minor non notable characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It has been a very long time since I watched the anime (10+ years), but I think the Shinma on the Shinma page are generally not very significant and shouldn't be merged into the main article. The Shinma that are major characters seem to already be listed in the main article, and not in the Shinma list. Maybe just Lemures' entry should be merged, since I see he has an entry on the main list. Calathan (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
While each monster has a distinct name and ability, it only lasts for an episode or two. Their data can also be added to the television episode summaries. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sasami Effect

What reference work discussed the "The Sasami Effect"? Was it on VIZ's website? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure quite what you are asking, do you mean Sasami Masaki Jurai from Tenchi Muyo! ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It does refer to Sasami. The text on Wikipedia says it comes from a VIZ employee WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, all the info on the Tenchi Muyo! character pages was merged together from seperate articles on the characters. I checked the edit history of Sasami Masaki Jurai and saw no external links or references to be found. Looks to me like it is WP:OR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless the person writing the Wikipedia article was interviewing Carl Horn personally, it can't be WP:OR (original research and being unreferenced are completely different things). I assume that term must have come either from some interview with Carl Horn or some commentary he wrote, but I can't find the source. The first edit I can see to Sasami Masaki Jurai (now a redirect) contains the "Sasami Effect" term, so whatever it came from must predate that edit (March 2006). It may be hard to track down the original source at this point. Calathan (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
That phrase has not caught on in the anime community. I've watched the series that involve Sasami, but still don't know what that means. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with AngusWOOF. I've seen all of the Sasami releases and I have no idea what this article is talking about. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ANN top 100 list

I have a doubt concerning this ANN list. The page came up as I was using the project's custom search engine, but would it be considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia since it's part of the Enciclopedia section of ANN? Cyn starchaser (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anime News Network automatically generates lists of the best and worst rated anime and manga from the user ratings given to anime/manga. The content of the lists isn't user generated in the sense of being something one user typed in, but instead is generated by the website. If you specifically want to state that an anime/manga is among the top rated or bottom rated anime/manga among users of Anime News Network, then I think that would be fine to use (similar to how IMDB rankings are referred to on List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst). However, if you were looking for a source to show that a topic is notable, that certainly wouldn't be useful for that purpose, as it isn't in depth coverage but just a list generated from user ratings. Calathan (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I wanted to use the fact that a specific series is featured on this list as something of an example to strengthen a claim made almost in passing by a critic in another source, so I guess it's fine to use it. Cyn starchaser (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC: Haigakura

Hi. Could someone from this project evaluate the following AFC:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haigakura. Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is ActiveAnime considered a reliable source?

ActiveAnime is a reliable source used by WP:ANIME/RS. However, there is a recent discussion at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)#Possibly unreliable sources, in which a user is concerned about the use of ActiveAnime as a reliable source in the Ghost in the Shell (manga) article. The user also removed the ActiveAnime site from the Anime News Network article. As such, I am posting here to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion several months ago where I said that I think Active Anime isn't really a reliable source (see here for the discussion). While a valid point is made that the site has been cited as a source by reliable sources, on the other hand it doesn't have any evidence of editorial oversight or of anyone involved being a professional writer/editor/etc. In my opinion, that second point outweighs the first in this case, so I think it should be removed from the reliable source list at WP:ANIME/RS. I want to note though that I looked at a lot of the entries on WP:ANIME/RS when that previous discussion came up, and I think the vast majority of sources listed there are reliable. It just happens that the first entry on that list of sources is probably the least reliable of anything listed there. There may be a couple others on the list that should be reconsidered, but in general I think the list is good. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
And also, I have filed a notice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Activeanime_discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Does it have any articles written by professionals/staff? If so it might be in the same boat as TV.com, articles=reliable, user-generated database=not AngusWOOF (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Ghost in the Shell (EMERGENCY)

Sorry for the dramatization, but a dispute between an editor and I regarding the focus of the article. The editor User:ChrisGualtieri believes the article should cover all media, including media already covered in its respected articles. (For example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (video game) having extensive coverage in the main article despite the fact that its more suited in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I personally find it too redundant and unnecessary. It would be great if we got more comments regardless of the outcome.Lucia Black (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to look too far back in the history of this, but I gather from looking at this old version and the current version is that Chris is adequately converting Ghost in the Shell's article away from its manga focus to a more broad media franchise; which I agree with. It isn't even that extensive to be of concern. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The article will be convoluted and over redundant. Also theres just no chance the manga itself will get GA like this splitting the media away from the original.Lucia Black (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Lucia Black, if you don't mind, either I or you could put it up for Peer Review. That way, you would know the best way how to improve it so that it can reach GA. Ghost in the Shell is a very popular and influential series, so it probably deserves a better article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between Ghost in the Shell from your typical anime and manga article is that the common GAs hold media directly relating to the original media due to the adaptations not having enough independent information to be split. Another difference is these entries are interpretted differently, and not in the sense that one has an alternate ending, it adds new ideas between series. Sure at first glance, the article looks big and well researched. But reading it, will lead to confusion between series. I can understand if its lacking info, but that doesnt mean it has to cover all media such as adaptations of adaptations covered in split media when thats already covered in their own article. So the issue is "redundant" again.


Why cover an adaptation of an adaptation equal to the first adaptation when they have their own article and already extensively covered in the main article. The best example i can give is Blood: The Last Vampire in which spunned out to alternate retellings like Blood+ and Blood-C covered extensively but briefly mentioning the adaptations spunned out of those two. Although there's an established "Blood" series, theres no Blood article that extensively covers all media equally because it'll just be all the more convoluted and Redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, this is the third discussion you've opened about my actions and under the dramatic 'EMERGENCY' title. You lied and tried to sanction me at ANI, I was discussing the matter with you as you filed for ANI. And I am here to state a few simple facts to set the record straight. You unilaterally merged the manga content and are trying to push out the existence of a franchise page despite it existing for years. Your personal beliefs about the non-notability of the franchise intrudes on a proper landing page for other valid incoming searches for Ghost in the Shell. Your issues of redundancy are non-sense, you've not seen any of my changes and keep protesting something you do not see nor understand. 60000 people read that article, and its not just about the manga, many thousands read the manga section prior to your merge and 20,000 readers still go to Ghost in the Shell (film) each month. The Ghost in the Shell page needs to cover the franchise, broadly, your matters of redundancy boils down to not having summaries or duplicate information that can be found on another page. Both of which are perfectly acceptable. And lastly, your issue that the franchise is non-notable and the manga will dominate and be merged in later is completely wrong. If you want the manga at GA I'll conduct the fixes and start the process for you, but in all seriousness, readers of Wikipedia should not be defaulted to one media choice when three exact media fall under the same name. As it stands, Lucia Black's intention is to remove focus of the famous film and the famous game to place the famous manga in front. To summarize my opposition to all her arguments, it is that the franchise page is a top-level overview of the contents of a franchise, namely what is in it, but it also serves to make sense of numerous similar subjects without favoritism and from a neutral point of view. Making Ghost in the Shell primarily about the manga is not under WP:NPOV, the broad scoped page must exist in order to bring clarity and authority to the subject.
Sorry for the wall of text here, but that's about all I need to say. If anyone minds, I'm going to spend my energy fixing the mess and properly getting the manga side back up and working so that Lucia Black can nom it for GA. If that's a problem, message my talk. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not lie. There's a warning in your own talkpage. Which was ignored, which was suggested from a former helper of yours to use ANI. Then, there you changed and began to discuss again right after. A certain policy is coming to mind.
In what article does it have the same ammount of extensive coverage of the same subject between the same range of topic? Its unheard of, unnecessary, and only makes the article more convoluted. I highly doubt its an accepted form of editing.
WP:NPOV doesnt really fall in this situation because that would mean I'm trying to ignore sources out there for the sake of making a manga more important than the film and/or TV series, but thats not the case as the anime series and the films have their own articles, so in accordance to WP:SS (this is the key guideline that makes my issues of redundancy more reasonable and not "non-sense") summarized into the manga article (the original media of Ghost in the Shell series and the media that inspired the TV series and Films.
That's why the manga and the media franchise practically serve as one. (In which almost all anime/manga articles follow)
I've stated in GAN that if the TV series and films werent properly summarized and needed further expansion, then fine, however i dont agree with expanding the article with adaptation/spin-offs based on more direct adaptations of the manga because their already covered in their respected articles.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have no 'helper' or an 'alliance' as you called it before. Honestly, let me just do some work as I've been doing it. Please look at Ghost in the Shell (manga) its practically a GA right now, I just put it back to its proper context. Leave the Ghost in the Shell franchise page to me for a bit. It is in terrible shape, was missing lots of key links and aspects, it is shallow and devoid of depth. Already I am trying to take a very broad scope and address matters lightly, but authoritatively. Changes take time and if you are concerned with the manga, then please, put it up for GAN. It looks much better on its own proper page without all the other 'noise' from the other media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No its not. It's not even close to GA. This is the very reason why we should discuss it first before editing and reach a consensus. You just stopped bringing in any points now that i broke the reasons down from points which were ignored. You saying i missed key points, doesnt really mean anything if you dont go specific.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The manga, as it belongs on the manga page, is pretty close to GA. Unless you want me to pick a battle about the SAC manga, its fine. When I reviewed Ghost in the Shell it was for the media franchise, I didn't know you were wanting it to be about the manga. That's the problem. Ghost in the Shell (manga) is GA level after I merged your content to it and restored the page. The page I am trying to fix up is Ghost in the Shell which is the franchise page, and it currently is terrible. But fine, I'll stop working on it for now. I've got some basic constructs of what the article needs to be for today. I think other editors will see that Ghost in the Shell (manga) should not be at Ghost in the Shell for a variety of reasons including scope, clarity and convention. I think that the Wikiproject for franchises knew what they were doing when they made Ghost in the Shell be covered under their project, the scope of the material is too wide and too closely named to have it rest under a single media title. And fyi Madlax and other close adaptions of manga might be fine for the same article, but not every article is good. FLCL is a mess and you've been fighting that merger for awhile. I'm going to take your side over there, because in this case your reasoning is correct. Let's agree to disagree where we must, but please have faith in me that I can fix Ghost in the Shell to a proper page that doesn't horribly ruin the continuity for the readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm done for tonight. Lucia Black, I hope you realize I'm not trying to be mean or anything. Though WP:SS is a good guideline (not a policy), that is for the creation of articles and natural progression of material. What I am doing is in reverse, organizing a bunch of material and laying it out in summary style to cover that material. Its not redundancy when you are overly brief in your summary, that's what the example shows, summarize the contents of that other main article, but don't go in depth. Even if it is not the same thing, please see how Mortal Kombat is laid out. That is a good layout from the franchise level, and its more complex then Ghost in the Shell. Have a good night. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The more you fight this, the more you make it sound like a stylistic choice rather than a necessity. What makes FLCL a good example against Ghost in the Shell's layout? FLCL looks sloppy due to lack of information, not the structure and focus of the article, in which Madlax on the other hand extensively covers all media directly relating to it and because of that, it is GA. However unlike FLCL and Madlax, Ghost in the Shell has three different continuities, and their own media, already covered extensively in their own article.
To cover The Laughing Man, World War III and IV (introduced mainly in SAC series) in the overall Ghost in the Shell setting, is innacurate, and original research to believe all three series share the exact same setting. Not only that but you marked the SAC novels as "Graphic Novels" and the SAC manga as "Novels" and the Films having the Tv-film of the SAC (still part of the SAC TV series) together already
The layout we have for anime and manga articles works for all related media. I see how Mortal Kombat looks but doesnt even compare as its mainly a video game series (a single continuity), and still goes in accordance to summary style and in accordance to the style i had originally for Ghost in the Shell only the difference is only on type of media of the original continuity.
Again, Blood: The Last Vampire has two alternate retellings such as Blood+ and Blood-C which also gain there own separate media, such as manga, novels, and video games in which briefly mentioned (more brief than the layout you have) the adaptations in the main article along side the media that inspired it. Why? Not because they share the same continuity but because that section is its still mainly about that given media and briefly mentioning the adaptations based off of it.
Similar to how you had the original Ghost in the Shell video game be expanded and mention the soundtrack yet somehow mention all artbooks of different media in one table. Which makes the article's layout even more contradictory. So what will happen? If we follow the steps to fix that minor issue such as putting artbooks on their respected media, then the chain of fixes will begin as there are other media such as manga adaptations, novels, and so on back to the main media section only even more brief (as it should considering the articles already extensively covered in their respected articles and the main article isnt anymore brief on said media than their respected articles). In the end, it will all go back to the layout we had before. The only difference will be that it was expanded as i had continued to suggest.
This is a stylistic choice, not a necessity that is imparitive for the article's quality to improve.Lucia Black (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
First off, FLCL is not related to this, I found common ground with you that's all. Also, continuity need not be labeled exactly, there is no guideline for it such as there is no guideline stating that X must be done. Also, I mislabeled them, mistakes happen. Good catch though. Your argument about the franchise itself being non-notable has been withdrawn it seems, now we can actually get to meaningful discussion about the appearance and contents of the franchise page. I want the content displayed prominently and summarized at Ghost in the Shell for readers so that they can find and hop to the relevant and interested material. I shall restart a section for 'continuity', but I do not think that delegating universe differences and whether or not the media is in-universe relevant when it is still 'canon' isn't the top priority for me right now. Preventing the Ghost in the Shell page from returning to being about only the manga was. Please make a bulleted list or something to help me figure out your organizational ideas. I'm not opposed to organizational matters, but I would stress that defining 'series' with 'continuity' and media of that type would get needlessly complicated. Getting into such a debate may ruin the readability of the material and what exists by drawing similarities when there are none. Even in the TV series, there are, by design, different stories taking place at the same time, but even non-linear series are fine. You might as well raise the arguments of chronology and universe with Pokemon, after a decade Ash hasn't aged and the fact that in 14 movies the relevance or even perspective is left hanging in the same way as SAC's scenarios. And don't forget the various mangas! Our main focus should not be on dictating chronology, continuity and in-universe relevance, it is to explaining and defining the contents of the franchise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not complicated at all because its just like previous layout, the Ghost in the Shell manga mentions media that is directly influenced by it, (The film adaptations by Mamoru Oshii and The TV series by Kenji Kamiyama) and briefly mention the adaptations under it, not based on the idea of the media constricted, but as part of the media's legacy. Especially considering these articles have their own article and cover the same media only more extensively. I'm still considering the issue of Redundancy per WP:SS and i will not drop that issue because its key to good editing skills that all other articles follow. Where as yours is based on idealism, but no guideline and specific policy. Its what you personally believe, but not really supported by a guideline.

Its also not complicated to find which is part of which series. this has nothing to do with canon (determining what actually happened between media), this is what belongs in said media (that began that continuity regardless of canon) influenced by. The SAC video game spin-offs are based off the original SAC which is the TV series, and the same for the SAC novels. They may not tell the same story but still fall under that influence.Lucia Black (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SS is not a policy its a guideline, and it doesn't apply properly in reverse. Also, WP:IAR seems to fit if I cannot find a guideline, but I am sure one exists about the franchise matter, it just falls under common sense that you don't put the manga as the focus of the main incoming link when you have multitudes of different media. Your way makes finding relevant material difficult and just because you do not have an anime to take off from, doesn't mean that compressing everything has to be done. I'm going to add the mobile games now to the article. You and your in universe related perspective is just silly as you consider restricting information about scenarios that have little relationship outside of that media. SAC is more or less a fragment of a chronology of section 9 and the backgrounds don't really clash, but having knowledge of the outside material is not relevant to the different SAC media. I do not believe restricting the scope of a broad franchise article for the simple purpose of trying to put the finer points of the continuity's flaws out front. Not even Star Trek has to face such matters and their continuity is more messed up. Present the information as relevant to the franchise, I care less about the continuity. And fyi, such an obsession on the continuity and relevance based on that argument is actually what fancruft meant, not putting out information that exists and letting readers easily access it without finding the nav box. Right now the Ghost in the Shell manga article has seen a 4x increase in its traffic since I carried out the changes. The film has remained about constant. The video game has seen a 30% increase in traffic. It will take time for the outside incoming links to be updated, but already traffic improvement to other articles is being noted, so people are obviously going and finding the material easier. Such increases are likely indicative of a better article generating continued interest. Which supports my changes to keep Ghost in the Shell about the franchise. Our little differences on what to present on the franchise page is trivial in comparison to that major pov issue of the manga centered page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not Ignoring all rules because theres simply no other way, your doing to satisfy your personal taste and theres a clear difference. And althoug WP:SS is a guideline, its definitely one that can be enforced.

Its not fancruft to organize media per inspired media (Is what im trying to say). For continuity, the issue revolves around setting, where you make all three clash into one such as adding world war III and IV because its "Original Research" to believe all three continuities had those wars. Not only that but the character section mainly being "section 9" members when some of them werent even relevant in other continuities. If you were a true fan, you'd know the difference between the three right away, but its as if youre trying to see it in a way thats obviously wrong, to prove a point.

Is it fancruft for Stand Alone Complex to have all "SAC" related media under it?

It's not restricting the scope if they have their own articles, what you "want" is an article that covers all related media of all Ghost in the Shell regardless if it redundant, and thats just not an article thats going to be comprehensable or "necessary".Lucia Black (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, i personally use the word continuity, but it can easily be replaced with the word "series". You merely created more articles relating to the video games, who's to say traffic didnt improve from there? But not only that but i dont really see much evidence to your claims being the reason based off of not making the article about the manga if its all based on namespace, not topic.

It means absolutely nothing to say Ghost in the Shell (manga) received 4x more traffic when it was once a redirect. We already have other articles covering the same media, and therefore redundant unlike Final Fantasy and Mortal Kombat that you compare so much but never really give it an actual realistic comparison.

If there was no SAC article or Film articles, this wouldve been fine, but the fact that they do, means they have their own articles that cover said media. Right now the article looks like a mess and certain things just seem very trivial to have their own subsection.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Break

You've tried ANI now Mediation, you seem intent on punishment or binding action, because you do not try formal steps and you seem to be upset because your argument is the one that is the weakest. Your issue with redundancy is a logical fallacy and your obsession is pushing WP:OWN quite far. You've ignored DragonZero's comments the same as mine, its WP:IDHT to me. Lucia Black, I keep seeing you cut content, I don't see you refine or add to it. Anime and manga articles already have a language barrier to deal with, but your demands of zero redundancy and inability to understand a series of media is perhaps the largest barrier to constructive work at this point. Rather then try and approach it from a different viewpoint, you are stuck and criticize me, and offer nothing to the argument. I've been flexible and have given strong arguments and sought to work with you, you seem that you are unable to move on and cannot respond constructively. Its delete, merge and no redundancy. Redundancy is allowed in scope and it is the very purpose of WP:SS for articles that split off into other articles, you are unable to read inbetween the lines and get the spirit of the guidelines. That is why I can say WP:IAR because in no uncertain terms, I'm improving a page that previously was worse. Its bullying and wikilawyering to demand that something be done because of a guideline for no meaningful purpose, to promote no clarity of the subject and to bring readers to a preferred content and point of view that you want promoted. That is not how Wikipedia should work. With 138,000 edits, I have never done a vanity stunt or tried to push readers to my work and usurp the previous page in the process. If anything, it is that behavior that is disruptive and bad for Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation is different from ANI. ANI was because you gave up on discussing and attempting to spearhead. Redundancy isnt allowed in the way you made it, . You attempted to remove Ghost in the Shell:Stand Alone Complex Video games section away from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex article, whats next? The manga and novels aswell? Your editing style is far from guidelines, and more of personal taste. There is no specific "clarity" that needs to be reworked because theres nothing that needed to be clarified to begin with.

I did not Ignore Dragon Zero's comment, i gave clarity on the situation and s/he has since replied back. What you're doing is hypocritical: to remove related media because it does not share the §same storyline but somehow call it fancruft of me to use it as a reason against mine. There are other articles that do the exact same thing such as any other GA or featured article relating to anime and manga.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make it simple, all GA and featured articles are multi-media franchises. However they dont state them as such, they still cover different media that falls within that media franchise. This is what you dont understand about Ghost in the Shell (and probably something most people didnt know about ghost in the shell except those who are experts): Ghost in the Shell isnt just one multi-media franchise, its multiple. Thats why Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex mentions spinoff novels and spinoff video games, and thats why Ghost in the Shell original film also holds spinoff novels even though not sharing the exact same storyline. To synthesize every media with "Ghost in the Shell" will not help the article because each media is based off a different series. And thats why its not a good idea. In theory if this was a single media franchise, it wouldve been alot different, but its not. The TV series had created itself into a media franchise and so have the films. To edit the article the way your doing will only bring more confusion.Lucia Black (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The first part of the post has issues which we won't solve by going round in circles. And last I checked, I wasn't editing it when you brought me to ANI, I was actually wasting a lot of time, as I am right now discussing it with you again. I'd already have the changes made and everything done if I had the guts to be bold enough and do it already. But no, I'm going piecemeal, extremely slowly and letting you see and testing the waters. You don't seem to be opposed to some things, but others you are, and figuring out what you want on the article and what you don't and what you are doing is really confusing. You don't have issues with me editing the article, but you do, but you don't at the same time. You seem more then content to let me edit largely in peace as long as its slow enough for you to respond. Even when I don't edit and discuss you take it to ANI, I edit and work and discuss with you over the course of 24 hours and then I come back to this. Its confusing. Also, this whole thing with GA and FA being multi but not stating them as such doesn't matter so much, because they treat the material in such a way as to present it well. Why couldn't you do the same thing with Ghost in the Shell? You can have manga or anime be GA, you can have the franchise be GA as well. You can have even individual episodes and mere lists be GA or FA. What it is doesn't matter so much as how it presents the content. How about you edit the article for awhile. I'll do something else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will tell you now, the manga wont ever get to be GA in the state it is now. If it doesnt matter how the content is presented, then stop fighting it. Ghost in the Shell is completely different from the GA and Featured articles already presented, the media such as films and manga already have their own articles. Thats the key difference you dont see or choose to ignore. And not only that but their all based one one series as media in Ghost in the Shell is based off multiple. The films, and the SAC series already presents its info in their respected articles. Thats what makes Ghost in the Shell different.

Hypothetically: lets say theres three notable series based off of one.

Series A (original series)

Series B (adaptation)

Series C (second adaptation)

Then there are spin offs:

Series A: the novel Series A: artbook Series A: the video game

Series B: the manga Series B: the video game Series B: the guide book

Series C: the novel Series C: the manga Series C: the artboook

Having an article like that would look like this:

Media: AC B AB CA etc.

When it could look like this: A

B (link to main article) Mention the media it spawned off brief enough to still be about the main media C (link to main article) Same scenario for B

Its easier, simpler and easy access if the article is primarily on the manga, because A) Its the plot that was mainly based for the films, and the Stand Alone Complex series, B) The original media therefore easier to mention the other media but not media based on adaptations (for obvious reasons). C) The setting of the original didnt cover much, therefore everything in the manga was used extensively. D) They already have their own article.

For the record, i dont agree with any edits, but at least reverting what is just down-right wrong and not backed up by sources. Such as removing video games off Stand Alone Complex simply because it did not have the same storyline.

Its practically synthesis.Lucia Black (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The main article should not be about just the manga, that's what you do not understand. While it may be the source material there are different media and materials written by different authors and it does a disservice to the other media to cram it all together. While the manga and SAC basically take place in different roles with the Puppetmaster, the universe is still essentially the same. To be explicit, 'universe' would be the same as the differences would be like what the movie of Tengen versus the anime ending of Tengen. Or like Pokemon manga versus Pokemon anime, material is set in the same world and in the same area with the same characters with some modifications. This is different from universe as attributed to the Gundam series in manner of timeline and characters. Its all the Ghost in the Shell universe with slight twists. So yeah, you could call SAC a parallel universe because the events are not the same, but they are not that different either. Same with the film (because the Manga events are pushed out), same with Innocence, same with the novels, same with the 'SAC manga'. What is universe canon and what is not? That's the sort of thing that should be addressed, but it is not the key argument. After all, even Appleseed shares things in common with Ghost in the Shell, but we don't merge that in and call it a parallel universe. The relationship between the media is close enough that it is really the same franchise and its basically the same characters and stories in different situations. You might as well pick over Clone Wars and Star Wars, cause the issues with that being a 'parallel' universe aren't big enough to make it removed from the franchise itself. Your interpretation of the words meaning is just about the only thing that is giving me issues right now. And did you ever play the video games? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I grabbed the official IG source, since you and Cantbury Tail have issues believing it. I've replaced my wording ' However the scope of the manga, the film interpretation of the manga and its sequel, the manga related Stand Alone Complex series and its film, are often thought of as alternate universes or different accounts of the same material due to the role of different directors and writers who produced the media.'p with 'Ghost in the Shell as a franchise consists of alternate universes and different viewpoints of relative material due to the roles of different directors and writers who produced the media.' Remove it again and I'm taking you to the proper content related noticeboard. Its sourced properly, its right and you know it. You've been arguing it for awhile now, I just did it for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
i know ifnthis article gets cleaned up, it WILL inevitably be decided to cut down information per already being multiple articles that cover that. Lhaving broad scope for the sake off access eberything is a personal choice.Lucia Black (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

We're not getting anywhere if no one wants to get involved. So I requested for mediation here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell.Lucia Black (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong arming your way is not how this should be done, also its again the wrong process. It wasn't for ANI and its not for mediation. I'd try a 3O. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination

And now, the Good Article nomination has failed too. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Ga failed before the recent edits. That is why theres this huge discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Nom the manga, it'll probably pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I SWEAR to you it wont.Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (manga) is still NOT GA-ready, neither. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Free images needed for Portal:Anime or Manga

I have recently been trying to improve the Anime and manga portal to Featured Portal status, and I have noticed that it lacks a Selected Pictures section. I am planning to create this section but I am at a loss as to where to find such images. Can anybody point me in the right direction as to where to find some good quality free images? Any help will be greatly appreciated.--Lionratz (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You may find some free images over at WP:COMMONS. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Specifically at Category:Anime and Category:Manga. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Key good articles

Well time for a series of informal peer reviews. Well, over the years, Juhachi has done a great job on working on the articles for Key's visual novels. Currently, all of them, as well as the article for one pre-Key game, an original anime collaboration, as well as the article for Key itself are good articles. The Key topic is also a good topic (or featured topic, I'm not sure). The question is: are any of them good enough to be featured articles? If not, what parts need improvement? It's been a long time since we had a new FA (School Rumble), and we currently only have 4 FAs, so more would not only be appreciated, but will also raise the profile of this WikiProject. Any suggestions? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As the major contributor to these articles, I can say the main thing keeping any one of them (or any visual novel article, really) from becoming an FA would be reviews for the original game, though there are also issues with referencing of certain things, and copyediting to make the text brilliant. That said, Angel Beats! would have the best chance since it was an anime first. I'm thinking all it needs is a good copyedit and go over the referencing with a fine-toothed comb, but otherwise, all the information that should be there is, including ample production and critical reception. Clannad might have a fighting chance too. Rewrite would be good too, if it had some reviews.--十八 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it was Clannad which inspired me to ask this. I actually believe that Clannad is almost an FA (it would probably be A-Class if we had A-Class). Perhaps Famitsu has reviews? And wouldn't the polls be enough, since reviews for any game in Japan, let alone visual novels, are rare? Anyway, maybe we can have the Guild of Copy Editors help us out much like they did with School Rumble? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether they're rare or not, I'm sure it would come up in the review, and maybe you can convince some, but not all, and all it takes is one oppose vote to halt the process, but I guess you could try, but of course, not before the article was copyedited and generally improved to FA-level before nominating it.--十八 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the chapters in Hiroki Azuma's Hihyō no Seishin Bunseki (that I am using for To Heart) does kind of analyze (literarily and sociologically) One, Kanon, Air, and Clannad. It might kind of make up for the lack of reviews. -- クラウド６６８ 00:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Cloud668, that would work quite well. We need to avoid systemic bias here on Wiki, and not many people know that reviews are few and hard to find in Japan, so the lack of reviews could be forgiven. Still, if anyone can find Famitsu reviews for them then that could be enough. Also, there's already plenty of information about Clannad's legacy, which is very much appreciated.
Juhachi, if you don't mind, I'll make a request to the Guild of Copy Editors to copy edit the articles for Kanon, Air, Clannad, Little Busters!, Rewrite and Angel Beats!. Hopefully after copy-editing, at least one of them (in my opinion, it would either be Angel Beats! or Clannad) would have a good chance at becoming an FA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, the articles need a good copyedit, but with the guild's backlog, I doubt you'd see it done any time soon unless you asked someone to do it.--十八 11:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

need help Sengoku Basara and Gakuen Basara

Can someone who knows the series help out with Talk:List of Sengoku Basara characters? I have a stubborn editor who is adding all sorts of English voice actor stuff related to Gakuen Basara but it is unsourced. And he is doing the same on the voice actor pages. AngusWOOF (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Using anime as sources for biographies of voice actors

Currently, there are plenty of articles on voice actors that have a big {{BLP sources}} tag on top, even if the only content (apart from a short overview) is a list of roles. However, can the anime themselves be used as sources, or should the official websites of the anime as well as related staff media be used as sources? If the anime themselves can be used as sources, is the BLP sources tag necessary or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the anime shows a credit, there's no reason it couldn't be used. WP:PSTS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pointless tagging. You can look on the official website, and if its not there, check Amazon.com for the product and it list the names of those involved in it there. You can also just find someone who watched it to tell you who is in the credits. Dream Focus 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You can use "cite episode" for closing credits, however, some episodes list only the Japanese credits, English voice actor's aliases, or group the English voice actors as Voice Talent. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here's the case. In biographies, can episodes be used as in-line citations or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you don't cross over into WP:OR territory. If that's not clear enough of an answer, I can type up a few examples. Goodraise 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Anime and manga!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Some ideas include:

  • Women who have had key roles as actresses, animators, writers, producers, directors, etc, in anime and manga
  • Characters that have had a major impact on the representation or roles of women in anime and manga
  • The role of women in anime and manga and it's impact on culture

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of FLCL episodes/archive1

Join in to discuss List of FLCL episodes. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dakimakura

There's an edit dispute at Dakimakura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about the use of the photo file:Dakimakura.jpg -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been resolved by a free image being added in it's place =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Which somebody removed and replaced with another non-free image, which was promptly deleted on Commons, so I had to go back in and replace the free image again. <sigh> ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I need some help translating and moving references that are on Wikipedia Japan

The articles: MS-06 Zaku II, and List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics have references over at Wikipedia Japan. The problem is that I cant understand Japanese, if the references turn out to be no good I plan on sending List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics to AfD as I see it as a WP:NOTDIR example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tyrant Falls in Love

Can anyone give an opinion in this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would love to help but i cant read japanese, try over at WP:Japan - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed it. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tail translation discussion

Hello. There seems to be some concern about the correct English translations over at List of Fairy Tail episodes (season 4). The relevant discussion can be found at this discussion. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Meta regarding WebCite service

Please come participate in this discussion: meta:WebCite. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Eyeshield 21

Anyone can participate here and if is possible give an opinion about the article quality. DragonZero assessed as B and said that "prose issues so low". And I have to adimit that my English isn't the better possible as I'm not a native English-speaker. And I ask: it's so bad to need a peer review or is bad, but not too, and can easily be fixed? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another discussion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Vndb}}

template:Vndb has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination has been withdrawn & the template kept. --Gwern (contribs) 22:48 15 February 2013 (GMT)

Kinnikuman characters

Around 40 unsourced articles about hardly notable characters that I believe all or almost all need to me merged to the list(s). (Kinnikuman Wiki covers them anyway, and better.) --Niemti (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

They all need to be merged together and the excess detail trimmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I have started marging the character lists, after the merges take place feel free to help out or give advice as you see fit. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

That's great. --Niemti (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have knocked the category down to 22 unsourced articles if the remainder are to be Merged I need someone who knows a little about the series in order to do it as the characters appear in multiple anime under the Kinnikuman umbrella and/or the plots trimmed for the merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell rework

The article is currently aois a last ditch effort in fixing the article. It might sound petty but one of my goals is to get Ghost in the Shellthe waybitbislass and looking at the article, be see any way on fixing the article without going back to the original. Butnd the editor who was against the initial format mysteriously dropping edits after the change, i decided to rehash this one last time in a ditch effort to fixing the main article. I'll also be listing all reasons why the original format was better to help get my reasoning across. compared to the new one isnt so different. The only difference is that the main article had the manga mainly. And reasons for this was that the manga was commonly known as the original and all other media branched from it.

  • The old one was much closer to accordance to WP:SS. This current version lists all media equally and it just makes information redundant as the exact same info is in their respected articles.
  • unlike certain straightforward series where one or two media is the main series and all other media are lesser, Ghost in the Shell doesnt fall in the same basis as there are several series based on different adaptations/original and sharing the same media, so not only redundant but convoluted and no proper organization and it wont be any better if it continues to attempt organization with the current format. with having the main article being mostly on the manga, the article can be brief about the direct adaptations and even more brief on the secondary adaptations within their respected predessesors while not having any isues of organization.
  • The article will only be a summary of all of the series which wont serve much help if the manga gets split away.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Its because of what you said "Ghost in the shell isn't like the other anime media series" that it should be franchised like this. As for the redundancy just improve on concision. A quick skim shows that the information can be compressed while trimming the unnecessary. Also, well with my editing style anyways, I think you should get rid of the setting and themes section and articles World of Ghost in the Shell and Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell; but that's for another day. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UT
i really think you should elaborate as your not really saying anything that i can work with. I can say the same thing, "because its different from the others it shouldnt have a set up based mainlt on media (because its not based on media)" see? Only i elaborated a bit. Improve on concision? The redundancy issue is based on multiple articles sharing the exact same info only all the other article. Example: Ghost in the Shell manga is almost a mirror of the franchise because it holds media directly relating to it. Theres just no way this article can be cleaned up to the point where it wont go back to the manga mainly unless we ignore all the issues it has. and theres still the issue of convoluted. Simply because the series is different in general doesnt mean it the article should be the way it is if thw only difference being the manga being merges. The only compromise i can agree to is if the article is organized by series (manga series - film series - TV series - Related media) as it puts each individual series in an organized fashion AND the lessee media doesnt interfere. Unless you elaborate on ypur point.Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here? Im tired of these significant disscussions being passed off and having to drop project per project due to lack of discussion. I made some very good points, all im asking is for a more elaboration, not jist a vote count.Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ill just be bold about it....who knows maybe this time the bold edit doesnt bite me later on.Lucia Black (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. This, what you called "sorry" project, has no obligations to stop you if they don't want to discuss it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We both know this isnt about discussing. This is personal, and everyone here knows it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

should an anime episode article list a poll that only 20 to 623 people voted in?

Talk:List_of_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_episodes#Does_anyone_care_about_a_magazine_that_had_between_20_and_623_people_voting_in_a_poll.3F More input please. I brought this up two years ago, had one rude person defending it, and another person neutral undecided commenting. More input would be nice. How does having a very small number of people vote in a magazine poll, make it into an article? Should the List_of_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_episodes#Animage:_Anime_Grand_Prix_awards section exist at all? Please join the discussion on the talk page. Dream Focus 10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

While I might agree on any other case, I think Animage's Anime Grand Prix is an exception since it has become somewhat of an industry standard. According to http://animegrandprix.blogspot.com/, the evaluation seems to involve industry professionals as well. The statement "20 to 623 people" is also somewhat misleading if each vote is unique, as it would accumulate to several thousand votes when 1st to 100th place are added together. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as the rude person, besides the points about the Animage poll being Japanese, long-running, continuous, well-respected by the industry and fans, drawing upon industry professionals, and previously uncontroversial, I'd make the point that just 623 is a lot more than it sounds like if the sample was not biased towards particular anime; for example, if 100 of 623 voted for an anime, that's 16% but the margin of error is just ±3.1% (binomial 95% confidence interval: 13.26-19.17%) and so one could strongly exclude >50% as a possibility. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 13 February 2013 (GMT)
  • The English website for them is a free site that host blogs for anyone? They can't even afford to host it themselves on their own domain? Is that just a fan site? When a free blog says "It is considered one of the most important awards of the animation industry in Japan, and also the oldest of this kind." then I have trouble believing them. Their Wikipedia article says they have 65,660 subscribers. Other similar themed magazines with far more readers do polls as well, why not list them? And if only a rather small number of people who bought the magazine sent in their survey cards for the polls, then that's just pathetic. Why would we need that section in the article taking up that much space? I honestly don't believe anyone would care what a small number of people who bought a magazine consider to be their "Best Loved Single Episodes". Do other series that have won awards get a section like that? Dream Focus 21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not Animage's English website, just an aggregator of past rankings. It doesn't have an English website, and it only opened one starting in 2007. Animage may not be the largest animation magazine (that title belongs to Animedia), but it is the oldest. The industry has also cited the Grand Prix previously. [5] [6] [7] Yes, inclusion and weight of the list requires a case-by-case assessment, but not judgment on whether it exists in other articles. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Dream Focus, as Arsonal said, based on the numbers several thousand people must have voted in the poll. By my count, it has to be over 6000 people at the very minimum. That seems like a reasonably large sample, and the poll is from a notable magazine and is fairly well known. It seems reasonable to me to cite it in the article. However, I personally don't like the table listing each episode that placed. Instead, I think that should be described in prose, perhaps mentioning the top 2 episodes and stating that 17 in total placed in the top 100. But regardless, I think it is reasonable to cite it and that you are mistaken in stating that it was a small sample or that only 20-623 people voted (as again, 6000+ must have voted). Calathan (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Whether they host the info themselves is irrelevant, Dreamfocus (unless you meant to suggest that our version of the rankings data may be inaccurate, in which case you have expressed yourself poorly); many large famous animation studios do not have foreign-language websites or dropped them entirely - Gainax is a case in point, with the official English website deleted in the early 2000s and the French site (despite appearing official with eg. conducting many interviews with Gainax staff) is a fan site. Not opening a Japanese site until 2007 is, sad to say, not terribly surprising given the hidebound nature of much Japanese media (consider how much of Japanese music sales are still on CDs rather than digitally). As for other magazines: sure. If there are similar or larger anime magazines, let's include their rankings too; Animage is uniquely old and professional, so we might want to take its circulation figures as a lower bound for whose rankings we care about, but that's a different discussion. --Gwern (contribs) 22:46 15 February 2013 (GMT)

Are these polls just for that series or the entries are about several series? Seems a little bias if its all based on NGE and most likely better suited to just use the one that was voted the most, but if not, then it could be mentioned better in prose format without tue vote-count.Lucia Black (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The poll isn't just about NGE, but is for the favorite anime episode of the year from all anime from that year. Calathan (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Than its unnecessary to mention the number of votes and the same should apply to all polls. The ranking is what matters, not how many votes (unless their some techniclity being noted).Lucia Black (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Including the number may reassure readers that they're not getting some tiny or arbitrary poll if they haven't heard of Animage before, in the same way that political polls are usually reported with their margin of error. --Gwern (contribs) 22:46 15 February 2013 (GMT)

But not a necessary choice, all that it needs to be said is that the poll came from animage. Wikipedia shouldnt have to "reassure everything". If its confirmed reliable then, thats all readers need.Lucia Black (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the numbers provide context like margins of errors in newspapers provide context. The choice to do so is ordinary editorial discretion, the same way one might note of a quote - or not note - that you got it from another source which cited the original source and did not yourself get it from the claimed original source. --Gwern (contribs) 17:03 16 February 2013 (GMT)
We dont need to do it, and thats the point. And ading thwm doesnt give that significant ammount of reasurance. So its pointless and the votes would seem too redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Lucia Black in that we don't need to include the number of the votes in the text of the article. If you wanted to include them in the text of the references, that would be fine. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Because showing the number of votes would show how few people voted, and how pointless it is? Dream Focus 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, but also there's no reason to include them. We link to it in the reference, so people can go view the source if they wish. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting them in refs also seems like an innapropriate place as the votes arent sources. The votes shouldnt really be there unless we include all other series' rank and vote. Its best to leave them out completely.Lucia Black (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OnePunch-Man or One-Punch Man?

The Japanese website has a logo reading OnePunch-Man, but Viz Media is apparently calling it One-Punch Man: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-01-14/viz-shonen-jump-alpha-adds-one-punch-man-manga, http://shonenjump.viz.com/one-punch-man So which one should be the article title? It's currently at Onepunch-Man. --Atlantima (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Viz Media. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DragonZero. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the page.--Atlantima (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Harukanaru Toki no Naka de/Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time consolidation and cleanup

Currently we have the article Harukanaru Toki no Naka de, which mostly covers the game and the manga, and briefly mentions the TV anime/OVA/movie/etc. Then we have Harukanaru Toki no Naka de Hachiyō Shō which mostly covers the TV anime and briefly mentions the manga and game. The articles seem to be largely redundant to each other, especially the (very long) character sections. I think we should merge them to one page and if that turns out to be too long, even after removing excess details, we can put the character info in a separate Characters of Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time (or whatever title is chosen) page. Thoughts? --Atlantima (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks complicated. From my quick skim, the anime adaption received spin offs based off of original characters from the anime? If you're an expert at the subject and think it's better that way, do it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sailor Venus image dispute

Hello. Back in December 2012, on Sailor Venus, Hula Hup removed a copyrighted image per WP:NFC, as according to his words, "it just portrays one of the character's powers without essentially helping understanding of the article". The astrological symbol was also removed, as "the character is the article's subject, not their guardian planet)". However, that has been reverted from time to time. Today, I had to remove the images again and I want to get a centralized discussion going on here. I think the previous version by Hula Hup should remain. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to remove all images except the one in the infobox. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, when I checked the source for the fair use rationale at File:Venus_Love_Chain_Encircle!.JPG#Summary, it listed Youtube as the source, which unfortunately cannot be used as a source unless it is an official channel due to copyright concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I would remove all the imaghes but the first two (One in the infobox and the one that appears first in the text), free images are hard to come by when it comes to anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to share my opinion because I've been asked to. Per the guidelines, copyrighted images should be avoided if a free one can pass the same meaning. In the case of the Sailor Senshi articles, I was thinking months ago of replacing each of the various images depicting a single ability in their "Powers" sections with a free shot of their general respective element, e.g. a picture of water for Mercury, one of a flame for Mars, etc., with a caption like "X is the element/domain of Sailor Y", but finally rejected the idea because I was thinking at the time that they would seem a little weird. I still do, but I think it's more preferable compared to arguing and reverting each other's edits. What do you think? Hula Hup (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's fair enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

List of High School DxD terminology

Looking for comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of High School DxD terminology for a quick closure. Keep or delete, I'm more interested in the outcome to see if these articles should be deleted since I come across many non-notable series while assessing new articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A way to invite more members to our project

Awhile back I got this message from Wikiproject cyclones:


Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

and was thinking...... why dont we have something like this? Can someone make a template that invites others to join our project? I was thinking one with Wikipe-tan on it would be nice ^-^. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps?
You are cordially invited to join the anime and manga WikiProject (WP:ANIME), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with anime, manga, and related topics. WP:ANIME hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help improving old and creating new articles in this area. Simply follow the directions here to join!
You can use it by adding {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Invite}} to a talk page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure that would be nice. The Anime and manga WikiProject over at the Tagalog Wikipedia already has one; can't see why the English Wikipedia shouldn't. One question though: who will be the recipients? Random editors or those who edit anime and manga articles? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I would say anyone who edits alot of anime/manga articles and is a responsible editor, use WP:COMMONSENSE but dont withhold an invite to an editor you feel may be useful in helping the project. Also thank you Nihonjoe for the template =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just thinking should we make this into a template and add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox under templates for project use? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG ok....this is ridiculous.....I just proposed this not too long ago and hot heated debate....granted there was more to the idea...sigh....whatever....I humbly agree to this idea as well considering its also in favor of optimizing the wiki project.Lucia Black (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Better to take it one step at a time then, sorry for before but it looks like consensus has changed as the project does need new people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
water under the bridge now....it's for the wiki project after all. And for the record, the project needed it just as much then did it does now. But it's fine.....not mad....just...I'm starting to think the neglect, and disapproval is becoming personal. But I rather not talk about this here. I think this is a good idea, and could be used well.Lucia Black (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Personaly I think you do a great job here and have given lots to help out for the project, anyways do you think this should be made into a template? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was in that debate, and I was on the opposing side merely because I thought it was unnecessary to actively "recruit" members, but if this is what the project wants...--十八 04:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I still think it's a bad idea that will do more harm than good in the long run, but I'm done arguing about it. Goodraise 06:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I am having a hard time seeing anything bad about going out and getting new members who are intrested in anime and manga we were all new once, I remember when I first started out my name was taken to WP:ANI from this project. My point is that we should give people a chance to make meaningful edits to help grow and improve our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The differencne between this case and the last was that they were the consensus and the stronger they opposed the more solid it was. Goodraise admitted it was more. On how the wikiproject will be about and Juhachi also claimed it will cause trouble. But now that people dont mind the idea, its as if its opposition isnt that strong. A tactic that was used against me constantly. For the record: any "harm" that will come from this invite is more of the assumption of bad faith on something we dont even know for sure. I personally think it shows that the wikiproject doesnt discriminate with new members and of course some issues will occur but i think it will help train editors even more. So its just as if were inviting trouble some editors with good faith but with the chance to help them. And it all starts with the wikiproject.Lucia Black (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference between this proposal and yours is that this one is differently worded and not made by you. People don't ignore discussions in which you are heavily involved because they want to screw you over, but because you are so difficult to deal with. Understanding what you write is as hard as it is to explain things to you. It's tiresome, exhausting, and usually a waste of time. If you want that to change, you could try asking a seasoned editor you respect to mentor you. Goodraise 23:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's messed up and.incredibly uncivilized for anyone to do. For the record Goodraise, ive given everyone more than one chance to reason and help me see if im wrong, but not one person stepped upp and thats what irritates me about members like you. "I disagree and refuse to help you see my view on it" is what i hear through these discussions. Goodraise, i AM Difficult, but to the controversial articles, to the grey areas, to everything thats been ignored in the past because the wikiproject allows WP:Own. So im prideful on the fact i dont back down. I give strong reasoning toward my votes and proposals in wikipedia when necessary. The problem isnt thatim difficult to deal with, the problem is the discussions get longer. You even challenged me to go to an admin for your behaviour then quickly changed your mind. Too many people here rely on vote count more than reasoning and taken to their advantage by speaking their mind once and staying quite.Lucia Black (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm done arguing in circles with you. Keep your delusional beliefs for all I care. Maybe someday you will get so tired of these deadlocks you keep running into and open up to the possibility that you yourself may be the problem. Or maybe you won't. Who knows? An editor review might help. Goodraise 21:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Im not the bad guy here. Im only encouraging consensus. I practically BEG for reasoning. But people intentionally leave the opposing short handed by constant repition and not countering the others view. I refuse to be left short handed. Im not the problem, just everyone treats me as such. And your not encouraging any form of civility either, you just look for ways to make things even more difficult. If im trully the problem its only because everyone else made me out as one. And this is the worst part, articles out there are taking the damage.Lucia Black (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lets not get in a debate on what happened in the past, its come and gone, lets rather focus on the future and getting new members who show intrest in Anime and Manga to help out. Idealy it would be nice to get some more female editors involved as this has been an issue on wikipedia overall. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why an editor's sex is of any significance. Not to mention that some editors wish to remain anonymous in regard to their sex.--十八 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
[8] Women editors on Wikipedia make up just 9% of the total population. There have been many studies about it. See also: Wikipedia:Gender gap - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but if the gender gap is that pronounced, wouldn't it then incite girls and women to improve all of the shōjo, josei, yaoi and yaoi bait articles out there which are under developed? (I'm not saying that only women would be interested in those, but that they're generally geared towards females.)--十八 04:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Strike Witches FL discussion

There's a discussion about making List of Strike Witches characters an FL. The discussion is at Talk:List of Strike Witches characters#FL?. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Kuroko...

Can anyone give an opinion in this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a comment on the talk page -- basically "basket" is not any sort of romanisation. I understand Eyeshield 21 is a similar case, and as there I think the title should be the obvious direct translation "Kuroko's basketball", followed by the Japanese in roman letters and kanji. It seems to me also that the "known as" is odd: articles should make clear that something is the Japanese title.
This problem of "not-quite-romanisation" is widespread: there's something being called "Danball senki", on no basis other than the registered domain name for the game/manga/whateveritis. But this is an obvious error, caused by the junior member of staff given the job of finding a domain name not having a clue of the origin of the 'booru' part of 'danbooru' (it's actually an old, Meiji era perhaps, rendering of "board"). And so on... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Gall Force

This template isn't necessary, is? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it up for deletion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed TfD is the place, the things that were once part of the template were merged into the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a Break from this wikiproject

I dont feel welcomed here at all. Not even a little, and as much as i attempt to prove myself to be taken seriously such as attempting to make articles upto GA class or getting a C upto B, those efforts get interupted by hot headed (lying) editors and ended by the lack of help. So right now everything is just a viscious circle of failure. Im just taking a break, and if that doesnt help then maybe ill quit.Lucia Black (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of this to link to? Is it just one editor you have a problem with? I check your contributions and that's all I see. And I agree with you about using the proper name of the game for the article name, not changing it because of some standards used for other things. Dream Focus 16:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
She's probably not talking about me, considering I'm not part of this Wikiproject and I don't really work on anime-related articles outside of ones that use the art-style in video games. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No im not talking about you. And this isnt really video game related. But regardless i need a break from editing anime and manga articles. I rather not discuss about it now, all im saying is that im taking a break from the wikiproject. Ill be focused on other articles for now.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Aww I hope you come back in a bit, you have made alot of good improvements just like in the real world though there are always "Those people" just ignore them. Anyways enjoy your break but please come back soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Viz media restructed

In case anyone is interested, any articles sourced with Viz Media may need to have their links fixed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Aniplex USA or Aniplex of America?

Just need something to be clarified. Is the name of Aniplex's American arm Aniplex USA or Aniplex of America? I've seen both names in articles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The company is registered as Aniplex of America, Inc. Aniplex USA is used as a shorthand because that is their website URL. (AniplexUSA.com WHOIS) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
So basically, in articles, should its name be Aniplex of America or Aniplex USA? Or are both acceptable? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
My preference is probably Aniplex of America, but the other works as well since Aniplex USA redirects to Aniplex of America. Don't use both in the same article though. Use one or the other. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on removal of demographic on infobox

Linked here. Come to think of it, Demographic in the infobox does seem pointless. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

3O at Template talk:Ghost in the Shell

I would like to request a third opinion at Template talk:Ghost in the Shell#Heading "redundant". For context, see my preferred version of the template and Ryulong/Lucia Black's preferred version. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually, WP:3O is the venue for these requests, not a related wikiproject's talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Also a third opinion must only be sought when there are only two people arguing over something. You, Izno, are arguing with at least 3 other people on this issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"Must only" is opinion. If you would like to further invite users at WP:3O, be my guest. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Free images for seiyuu

Many of our articles for seiyuu don't have images of them. Unfortunately, it appears that in most cases, no free images exist. Perhaps it would be good to try and contact their agencies and ask them to donate images? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You can do that if you can speak the language and are able to confirm that the company consented their usage. This is more of a wikiproject Japan topic though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jetix (US) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jetix (US) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetix (US) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. All national version of the Jetix article are also up for discussion. Spshu (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted for discussion on 12 March 2013. Spshu (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jetix

Template:Jetix has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Spshu (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Meet up suggestion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Select biographies in Template:Anime and manga

Can anyone give opinion here? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Anime East

I noticed previously that Mike Toole referred to what I think is the same convention as AnimEast in some of his columns for Anime News Network (sorry, I'm at work so I don't have a link to the columns right now). Since the article is about to be deleted, I was wondering if anyone has looked for more sources under that name. I don't know of any sources other than the Mike Toole columns, but if anyone could find a second source then maybe the article could be saved. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed named AnimEast, also stylized as Animeast and ANIMEast. I assume Anime East is being used to avoid confusion with the anime wallpaper site AnimEast.com. There's a passing mention of it in Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User conduct discussion regarding Niemti

There is an ongoing user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject, since he contributes to many anime articles. It can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tail split-up

Hello. There is a discussion on splitting the "Fairy Tail" section from the List of Fairy Tail characters into its own article. It can be found at Talk:List of Fairy Tail characters#Create page for Fairy Tail guild. Input from project members would be appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

simple request about creating a list

Hello there. I don't mean to make a fuss or anything but I was wondering if I could ask a simple question:

I've noticed that a similar topic concerning the Japanese music industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_Japan

Personally, I have no complaints against this since i myself enjoy being able to read through the data provided in them.

But then this made me think as to why not create a similar page listing the highest selling manga authors of all time?

Due to the incredible popularity of manga in world (not necessarily meaning that everybody loves it but you get the point), wouldn't it be appropriate to create page for this too?

Many of the of the websites I've been to give varying accounts of which manga title has the most sales or which author has better quality of writing and drawing, etcetera (with most, if not all, of the titles falling into the shonen category).

As a result of this, it made me wonder if Wikpedia would ok with providing a list if it;s own for the sake of convenience?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If a few reliable sources can be found for such a list, I see no problem with it. We would need to have reliable sources, however. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory and the Animation

I need some help with expanding those 2 articles if possible. They need attention from some experts. Is there anyone out there willing to lend a hand or two? Your help is truly appreciated. --Bumblezellio (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a discussion regarding if Kaze Tachinu should be moved to the official English title The Wind Is Rising. It can be found at Talk:Kaze Tachinu#Requested move. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a related move discussion at Talk:Kaguya-hime no Monogatari (film)#Requested move. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

MangaMagazine.net

Should this article stay? Not sure what to do about it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Deletion. Almost all of the references are not notable at the slightest, but I'll wait to watch for improvements. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The article as-is looks a little dubious to me too (a TvTropes page as a reference?), but looking through my CSE results, I think one might be able to establish a reasonable case under the business or website notability guidelines. --Gwern (contribs) 18:49 16 April 2013 (GMT)
It is abusing the system right now. I'll deal with it in a moment. If it is notable its 'list of premium articles' gets axed either way, its not encyclopedic in any form to have a list of articles from a magazine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Straight Title Robot Anime

I created this new Article myself. I didn't use the Article Wizard and have it submitted for review yet though. Can I ask for your opinion on the subject for now? Also if possible is anybody interested on this Article and willing to lend a helping hand? Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much a stub. I don't think Pixiv is a reliable source. Needs info box. There should be notability, since source 2 says it streams on Crunchyroll. Overall, needs work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I use the references provided in its Japanese counterpart? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If those references are reliable, of course you can. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

Hi. In a recent discussion on Talk:Ghost in the Shell, there appears to be an ongoing dispute between Ryulong, Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri over several issues, specifically how to present the article, music references and merging (see also Talk:Ghost in the Shell#Music ref and Talk:Ghost in the Shell#Updating....). More fresh eyes on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This wiki project is really rather dead.... the matter moved to WP:DRN but you might have gotten a member out of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I did, and that member is DragonZero. But we really need more eyes involved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Adult material

I have a distaste of quite a bit of material on Wikipedia, but sometimes things are just too great to overlook. Our 'adult' articles are so incorrect, out of date and flat out wrong that it is hilarious they are somehow better then their Japanese Wiki counterparts, but like Hentai is just so disastrous that nothing can really be saved from it. Let alone the actual matter of fetishes and various offshoots come from. The only one which is at least good is Lolicon. Do we even really need to link to the material in the template? Why not just develop a hentai template and slap it on the smut? Either way, I don't want to step on anyones toes here too much, but this wikiproject should REALLY prioritize some of the adult subjects as they are just so outlandish I think trolls wrote them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It might've been written by trolls. A lot of the GA, FA, and FLs are also going downhill since they haven't been monitored well. I'm not sure if this wikiproject has any members that would want to tackle these current issues though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wanna consider starting the "Hentai" Task Force. Even saying it out is just somehow awkwardly embarrassing.... --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
My taggings got reverted on Hentai, twice, it seems that there will be push back on it, but I used the very first source in the article to put up how outlandishly bad the article is. For instance there is no mention of the 'original' hentai image/woodcut of The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife this is contrary to early informative works (as in almost ALL cultures) of maiden guides to sex. Even in scope these matters say nothing of deliberate works of the ero-guro genre or the shakeup following the end of WWII and mentions nothing about U.S. president LBJ's attempts to deal with it. It doesn't even mention key notations and break aways in the group, and this matter extends to terms such as shotacon which while cited as the 'detective boys complex' is in fact traced back to an earlier editorial comment, but the Shotaro (forgive the stripped diacritics) matter was the identifier. If we are going to actually improve these articles (they were never good to begin with) a direction and scope will need to be agreed upon. I'd go with the worldwide view, as it is entirely U.S. centric and full of OR as a result. And a Hentai Task Force is a scary idea. Though I do believe that if we are going to try and address major concerns with these topics some organization will need to be created... and maybe an info box, but I'd rather keep this under the Anime/Manga project because wikiproject splits are usually a bad thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of date sounds like someone's trying to maintain a directory of adult works. Has there been a wave new articles or journal papers concerning the articles, besides technology related stuff? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, way to misinterpret. Considering that the history is wrong and that so much of which I explained is wrong and out of date, you would think some interesting court cases, various social functions and other matters would be discussed. The Japanese Wiki does a better job of maintaining a directory... but who's looking? Out of date is not just about the 'works' it is about everything from 2006 which has changed as well. Like the ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, understood, I was hoping it was just a "dated" thing. It must be hard to update if the history sections pre-2006 are even screwed up. :( -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, not to be rude either. But the very material I was complaining about was just (and correctly pointed to the not messed up articles) noted in a website I like to read. Which went live at 10 pm edt today (after my post above no less). "Legal in the US, watching “pixie sex” lands New Zealand man in jail" [9] The key note is the Christopher Handley case which was brought against a collector of manga being prosecuted without issues of child pornography or other issues. The specific matter related to some lolicon material and being prosecuted. Due to bad counsel and a lack of attention and assistance from groups like the EFF the case was extremely important as it shot down parts of the PATRIOT law. I'm fixing the matter of the old issues right now on other pages. Contained within is the Dwight Whorley case in which a man knowingly and deliberately downloaded a bunch of questionable content including lolicon, but he download images containing real images as well. The whole unique part is that he was a repeat offender (of the real kind) and the article says nothing of this, instead harping on about the judge's comments that the children do not need to exist according to the law. Then we have the obscenity charge of Christopher Handley which was done by plea deal and a weak legal counsel for the case, the obsenity charge could probably have been fought off but counsel advise him that a jury was not likely to side with him. I fixed one part now, but these key matters need context and some of them are outright wrong and while I enjoy reading things on Ars Technica, I hate seeing something lousy being referenced to when everyone knows it can be cleaned up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've done some work on 18 USC 1466A's cases. One of the cases wasn't even in relation to the law and the other was not covered well, and some lack context. Its also an obscenity law. Its minor stuff, but Wikipedia has this matter covered on like three pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes/archive1

Comments for this FL would be helpful. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png

File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png appears to be having an edit war. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Laura Bailey (voice actress)

Can someone please help provide an image for this article? I tried and I could get evidence of permission for WikiCommons or something. Anyway, I don't know how to rectify it and now the image isn't really usable as it's going to be deleted in a week. This actress has provided the English voice for some notable anime characters. Please, can someone help? I've been doing some work on the article you see, trimming it down a bit and adding or repairing a reference or two. I thought it needed an image. Once again, I really need help here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you meant by the sentence "I tried and I could get evidence of permission for WikiCommons or something.", but biographies can't have images unless the people themselves give you permission to do so. Do you have permission from the voice actor? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Familytree DBZ.gif

image:Familytree DBZ.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unmerging an article

User:Vixra has been insisiting on unmerging Obito Uchiha despite the lack of third party sources, and its overdetailed information. I tried to contact him to explain why such edits are wrong but he is just ignoring me and keep editing page. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at [10], the article had no references, and did not seem to establish notability for its own article, so I don't really see anything wrong with the merge.--十八 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The person in question seems go be confusing plot importance with notably since there is no way that an article without any sources (outside the work of fiction itself) could possibly meet WP:N. The merge was the correct call.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I don't think he's even all that important plot-wise - he doesn't show up until like halfway through, and isn't revealed as anything but a bit player until even further in. Regardless, there is simply not a lot of discussion of him that I can find in my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 17:54 27 April 2013 (GMT)
Also even if he did have an article (which I see as unnecessary), I believe it should be at his alter ego Tobi since he had a more significant impact on the story under that persona.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Muv-Luv Confusion

When I read the character description and the plots of Muv-Luv extra and Muv-Luv Unlimited, I still don't understand the relationship between each character. Can somebody help elaborate more on the character description and the plots? It's really confusing to understand from my point of view. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about Plot sections in anime and manga articles

Hi,

Whenever I look up a Wikipedia article about some anime or manga series, I notice the "Plot" subsection is extremely short, nothing more than a blurb. There are no significant plot details, while the "Characters" section is extremely detailed, listing even minor characters. Most of the time, the "Characters" section is the most lengthy one in the entire article.

This imbalance cannot be found in articles about movies, or live-action TV series. Some examples:

  • Mahoromatic - there is no Plot section;
  • K-On! - Plot section is very short and low on details, there's no description of what actually happens in the anime;
  • Yotsuba&! - Plot section is very short, Characters section is at least 50% of the entire article.

Now compare these to articles about live-action movies or TV shows:

  • Lost (TV series) - has a Synopsis section, with multiple subsections (Overview, Mythology, Recurring Elements);
  • Spartacus: Blood and Sand - Plot section is comprehensive; Characters section is just a simple listing, along with brief one liners about each character;
  • Donnie Darko - movie page; 50% of the article has to do with the plot.

So I have to ask, is there a different template manga and anime articles have to follow? If this is true, why is the template different?

2A02:2F0A:C01F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:CB6F (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question directly. Howeverm the driving guideline with any work of fiction is writing about fiction, in combination with our policy on how "weighted" our articles are toward one topic or another. It would be more appropriate for you to reference recent featured articles to find what the current "standard" is regarding what an article should look like. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It raises a valid point. The coverage of characters should be limited to major ones and the plots should be expanded somewhat, but I do not think that a full reversal or expansion of plots to cover every detail is proper either. Due to numerous differents in anime and manga adaptions, OVA and other works, the probable precusors to this would be Fullmetal Alchemist, One Piece and Sailor Moon. While I am pushing for a definition and inclusion principal for complex franchises to work in a cohesive manner, the issue of plot and characters are one related to the difficulty in writing about the material. Characters are very easy to add, their depiction is a lot easier then condensing 26, 52 or 500+ episodes of anime or 5-10-30 volumes of manga into a space of about two pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
From a general fiction coverage perspective, with some animes that are more slice of life than serialized storytelling (ala Yotsuba) the plot itself will be short to establish the situation, while the focus will be on characters since that is what is played with. Contrast this to Lost which is very much story driven with a long mythology-based plot. That said, I think that in many anime/manga and even Japanese video game articles, the focus that newer editors tend to bring is on the characters (including trivial character detail) rather than the work itself, which is generally true - anime etc are very much home to memoriable characters more than western works and story tends to be the side aspect. But that doesn't mean we should have overly long character sections in lieu of appropriate plot summaries. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think those guidelines are even related to the subject. It's more on the commitment. There are users around who gets confused between summary and plot. These users are most likely aren't familiar with WP:PG or probably not good with writing/typing a script. I looked into the featured article of Shakugan no Shana. The plot was very well elaborated and most.... no, nearly all of the key elements are in the plot. That article has a lot of attention from the West and so it is popular enough to sustain and be upgraded into a featured article. The same goes for Fairy Tail and Steins;Gate. However, articles such as Horizon in the Middle of Nowhere, Guilty Crown, To Love-Ru, Kissxsis, City Hunter (Even with the tag the Plot is still abandoned), and so on; are not making much or any progress at all. We don't have enough users to help them out and I don't think there's anyone out there who can raise it up with a fully elaborated plot, characters, production, reception and more with references that suits all of WP:N criteria all by Himself. I think that's all I have to say regarding the problem we're facing now.
Still, I want to find a way to attract more attention to those abandoned articles, is there any sort of program or campaign the WikiProject can start? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
None at all. You'll have to take it up yourself or hope someone else will. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, its fix them yourself or wait till someone else cares enough to do anything. They are not abandoned, but are likely not the subject of someone who knows about them that wants to improve them. Most people who visit pages seek to learn information, not update it. The rare person who can and does improve the article typically unquestioned and unchallenged even if their intent is bad, but not strictly vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Theme songs

I'm finding that whenever I come across an article for some anime I've just heard about, the theme songs are always given as their literally translated titles. This is not how WP:MOS-JA asks that the content be treated in any way. I would like to propose that somewhere on this WikiProject's style guide that we state that unless a song is known by its English translated title (ex. A Cruel Angel's Thesis) that the romanized name should only be given.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:MOS-JA indicates that the romanized Japanese name should be given, but I don't see anything in it that indicates a translation should not also be given. For something like a song title, which generally has a meaning, I think it is important to provide a translation. I think for song titles without an official English title, the romanized Japanese title should be given first, but the first time the title is used in the article a translation should also be given in parentheses. Calathan (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that the translation should not be given. I only said the translation should not be considered the title. If a song is known as 心 in Japan, the English Wikipedia should not refer to it primarily as "Heart" (unless it's somehow intended to be read as hāto). However, "Heart" should be listed in regards to the song's title's meaning. And unless there is some sort of official translation (as there only appears to be for Evangelion) the romanized Japanese title should be given preference.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd treat it like any of the regular Japanese music songs and albums. "Hikari" is still listed as "光" on all of Utada's compilation albums. Where are people getting their translated titles anyway? Are they reading the subtitles provided by the streamers and making their own guess when they hear a phrase that matches what's printed on the screen? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more of a translation because they understand Japanese. I found Attack on Titan tonight used the literal translation of its ending theme's title as the title (the opening theme for whatever reason has German subtitles in the raw opening sequence).—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ryulong that something should be done about this. I'm come across it enough times already, and it's very annoying to change the titles.--十八 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The word "only" in your original comment is what made me think you meant the translation shouldn't be provided at all. I understand now that I was misinterpreting your comment. Anyway, I agree that the romanized name should be used as the title of the song when there isn't a different official English title. Calathan (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on DB/DBZ split

Hello everyone. There is an RFC regarding if we should make the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z article as separate articles. The RFC can be found Talk:Dragon Ball#RfC: Is it relevant to demerge Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z as separate articles?. A user has expressed concern that the current state of the Dragon Ball article lends undue weight and the two articles should be separated. We need a consensus on this matter and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion

There is a relevant discussion about franchise articles in the manual of style. The discussion can be found at WT:MOS-AM#Franchise articles. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Now at RFC on the village pump. Please comment there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Adios

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles like One Piece. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Devil Survivor 2: The Animation first airing date

In the trailer, it's clearly stated that the anime started at April 4th in MBS. The online streaming delay a day after the original air in Japan, except Crunchyroll that follows the original air in Japan for the members only. --Arami-re (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The listed dates aren't because of the CR stream, but because it airs after midnight. A broadcast day according to Japanese TV stations is the time between 5:00 and 28:59 (4:59 on the next calendar day). Thus the air time is listed as "2013-04-04(木) 26:05" but this is technically April 5, 2:05.
There was a short discussion about this just a while ago: here. I think the consensus was that this non-standard format should not be used. ー HigherFiveＴＣ 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you explain Crunchyroll, then? Crunchyroll already started online streaming (for members only though) of Devil Survivor 2: The Animation at Thursday, 4th April, 2013.--39.212.156.192 (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg

File:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Title

There seems to be some dispute over the article title of the series Yahari Ore no Seishun Rabu Kome wa Machigatteiru in the talk page. I believe there is a preset rule on how such is handled and therefore I would like to request help from an experienced editor to resolve this issue. Thanks. Freezingfield (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lolicon and Shotacon considered Hentai?

I noticed that these articles were placed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai's scope and I agree that some were made into Hentai per reliable sources but is it valid to lump in the terms with Hentai as a whole? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... Loli and Shotas are also a material for Hentai stories. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess the fact that lolicon and shotacon could and are used in hentai is the matter.--十八 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:PROJ#OWN "...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." I am deeply concerned about the attempts to coerce and force actions and drive away editors. If you have issues go to WP:HENTAI and do not bring it up here. The hostile and petty nature of this dispute stifles cooperation and growth. And to clarify according to the NPA 30% of seijin manga material falls into this category.[11] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Planning on sending List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters to FLRC

I brought up issues here. Someone can address them if they want. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So User:AnmaFinotera's legacy is finally starting to unravel, huh? Not that I'm surprised since this is what happens to abandoned articles. Still a shame though, seeing how much work she put into the project back then. For all intents and purposes, this was probably the last stable version aside from the name changes and a few other cosmetic changes.--十八 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
How about to revert to the last stable version? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. We should keep the legacy of Wikipedians alive as well. AnmaFinotera was one of my major influences during my time on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Accuracy is still debatable due to new translations. I would've reverted it if that was the only issue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. We should keep an eye on the article and update where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dirty Pair

Category:Dirty Pair has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Star Blazers 2199#Requested move

Hello. Can some one give an opinion in this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should have never been moved but some IP decided to fuck up the redirect.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Airdates after midnight

I've seen networks use a programming schedule from 04:00 to 27:59, so technically shows can air after midnight, yet count towards the previous day. For example. Monday April 8, 2013, 24:30-25:00 is the same as Tuesday April 9, 2013, 0:30-1:00. So in the listings, should they be posted as April 8, 2013 or April 9, 2013? The sources I've seen appear to support the former, although I have seen networks use the latter as well. Is there some sort of footnote standard we can use for such show airtimes? This impacts all those anime shows that tend to air at those wee hours. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen the former anywhere outside of Japanese networks' programming schedules. It doesn't seem to be at all common anywhere else. Either way can be confusing, unless the air times are listed as well, or unless which date is listed is noted.
In my opinion, the latter should be used in all cases, regardless of networks' listings, for consistency across articles and because the former can be confusing for a reader who is unfamiliar with it. ーHigherFiveＴＣ 02:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer the former. If an airdate has been set by the network then it is set. I don't really think using the latter would do much help in keeping track. However, if either the former or latter is to be used, then there should at least be an indicator to show that the shows first aired after midnight to avoid confusion to the readers, something like my personal experience though. --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think the latter should be used for consistency. Going by MOS:TIME, it says "24:00...should not be used for the first hour of the next day (e.g. use 00:10 for ten minutes after midnight, not 24:10)." So if a network says it airs at 25:00 on April 8, I believe MOS:TIME is telling us to render it as 01:00 April 9, right?--十八 09:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
As Juhachi mentioned, MOS:TIME should be the standard. The most popular anime databases (MyAnimeList, AniDB) also employ this format. If there is further need for input, WikiProject Japan will be an appropriate place to ask. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a time format. Alright then. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking this out of the archives because I've got something to say about this. This isn't how things are formatted in general across the project. They advertise that it airs on Saturdays, even if it is after midnight, so we should note that it premiered on that broadcast date rather than the actual calendar date. American TV shows with similar schedules are treated in this way as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that nobody holds a strong opinion on this subject. Can we simply adopt either of the two formats for the sake of consistency across articles? ー HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 21:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to MOS:TIME and the fact that local consensus can't override guidelines, for now, we should probably stick to the actual broadcast date instead of the official one (for example, if a show is advertised to air on February 12 but actually airs on February 13, the latter date should be used). Or perhaps an RfC is in order? That would be a good way to determine consensus. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
MOS:TIME does not in any way state anything that you're suggesting. If something is said to premiere on April 6, even if it is at 25:30 or 26:45, then it's still part of the April 6 broadcast day. This confusion doesn't seem to happen to American programs that say have new episodes Sunday night at 12:30am so why should Japan be any different?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the text on MOS:TIME really applies here. It was written with only "00:mm" vs "24:mm" in mind. ー HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I too support the use of standard times and dates, according to MOS:TIME. It applies, because the date is connected directly to the (non-standard) time format. And not all japanese stations do the same thing; NTV and TV Asahi use standard time formatting in their TV schedule. Raamin (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Just stumbled here, and not like it's big news, but A+/Animax here in Hungary uses (at least used) such 24+ hour air times in their teletext feed. Not sure about their website schedule though. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The guideline at MOS:TIME states "do not present times as 24:mm, but rather as 00:mm". It says nothing about changing the date of something just because it is after midnight. Again, American television shows do this all the time. I can go look at the Adult Swim schedule right now and it says that a new episode of Bleach is airing at midnight on Saturday, May 11, 2013, even though the date is technically May 12.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You can find a similar discussion about an american TV show here; the actual airdate is used (for the moment) as a result. Raamin (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen that done for any other AS program, though. I know Venture Bros uses the broadcast day date rather than the effective date.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that airdate is directly related to airtime. To say that Attack on Titan started on April 6, 2013, without stating the exact time (that is "25:58") is misinformation. There is no consensus here to use non-standard time in articles. Raamin (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
No. An airdate is part of a broadcast schedule. And there is no misinformation, because reliable sources state that the Japanese premiere was on April 6, 2013. It's honestly – and I'm stretching this as much as you are stretching the meaning of what's written on MOS:DATE – a violation of WP:V to say something other than what the reliable sources say, just because it's technically a different date.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, airdate and airtime are related (not debatable), and using non-standard formats for time is absolutely not recommended. Raamin (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it's a "non-standard format" when the actual time the show airs isn't listed. All we are doing is saying the airdate according to the network's broadcast schedule rather than the actual calendar date.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, this edit of yours here to continually revert me actually was against WP:V and WP:RS as you are falsifying sources to state that it is April 7 while just hiding the fact that it's April 6 at "25:58", you have replaced a secondary source with a primary one, and as I use that reference to state that Daisuke Ono and Romi Park are appearing in the show you've made two sourced statements into further falsified sourced statements.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't falsify anything. I provided a source with detailed information about schedule (exact time and date on different stations), and edited it to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines (to my understanding). Also I don't find the source provided was against WP:V or WP:RS. Raamin (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You changed everything back to the "April 7" date when "April 6" is still written over everything, and replaced the secondary source I had used with the primary one, despite the fact I used the same source elsewhere on the page to source other statements.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I changed the date in two places; saying I had changed everything back to the "April 7" is overdramatization, giving the impression I made some big changes. Ignoring the named <ref name="natalie"> ref tag was definitely a mistake (I apologize). And again, I don't consider shingeki.tv a primary source for airing dates. Raamin (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If it's the official website, it's a primary source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This is your interpretation of WP:OR, I assume. It doesn't say that "all contents in an official website are primary sources". shingeki.tv belongs to Pony Canyon, and this company doesn't run the TV stations airing the show (no direct relation). The airing dates in the website aren't original materials published by Pony Canyon, they are a collection of informations provided and published by different TV stations (primary sources). Raamin (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have an RfC so that a consensus can be reached. Any thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this seems to apply to several different projects, we should probably have a centralized discussion at WP:VPP.--十八 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Juhachi's suggestion would be a good start. Raamin (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've started the discussion here. Input is welcomed. Since WP:JAPAN is the parent and was where the discussion was originally suggested to take place, I'll inform them as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai a task force?

Since this new WikiProject is directly related to content already under this project, shouldn't it just be a task force under WP:ANIME? Several of our current task forces (WP:GUNDAM, WP:DBZ) were also separate WikiProjects originally, so it's not uncommon to absorb related projects under our scope--十八 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

While the overlap is strong, the project includes non-Japanese works including Chinese, Korean and English 'hentai', broadly. A Wikiproject should cover hundreds if not thousands of articles in its scope, our scope is a subset of yours, but we work together, but our editing area and topics are about explicit and erotic content. Last I checked, Japan is related to WP:ANIME, and COMICs include manga. Our scope of articles renders in the thousands, while WP:ANIME is governed by 10x that number. Smaller defined topics exist for Wikiprojects with singular topics like WP:TREK or Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars which have smaller scope, limited to a single universe. Its like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre being outside of Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. With more then 60 titles being released every month in Japan, and literally thousands of examples I believe the group is distinct enough to remain on its own for now. Single franchise/universe scope would be under a taskforce in my opinion, if 2000 topics under our initial scope is a fair estimate of said "hentai" works then we have about 1/5th of the WP:ANIME as our targeted subject with a focus on artists, producers and organizations related to producing or censoring hentai. We don't even have an article on CASPAR for instance. What about the ero-gekiga publications of the 70s and the 80s? Tezuka is the beginning of your movement, where as Hideo Azuma is the beginning of our subject. Why Hideo Azuma you ask? He's the connected figure that was the impetus behind the pornographic revolution and depiction of anime and manga into something erotic, fantastical and of unique focus. WP:ANIME has so many issues with its own articles, that even publications like Osamu Tezuka's Marvelous Melmo is sadly lacking, despite being the very first instance of an anime serving as an introduction to sex education. And those were Tezuka's own words! Our scope is about improving the content and dirty little secrets that regular editors of WP:ANIME do not want to touch, think about or even cover. GA's like Kanon were originally ero-games, but before the Key capitalized its formula, ero-games like Rance and Dōkyūsei. What about ELF Corporation's as a whole? Our coverage of these topics are so spotty and so broad that some forty years of content is undeveloped. If a span of 40 years, thousands of notable works, a unique distinct history and the actual development of WP:ANIME's entire topic is relegated to a taskforce, well... I disagree. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a long speech for such a simple answer? What proof you have hentai encompasses chinese/korean media?Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. First of all, the entire scope of what "hentai" covers has to be something animanga related per it's own definition. "Hentai" is a Japanese word pertaining to erotic Japanese media. I don't know why you'd think you could apply that to Chinese or Korean works, or anything non-Japanese in origin. Besides, the difference between a task force and a WikiProject is purely cosmetic; instead of it's own banner, it would get a line in the existing WP:ANIME banner; see Talk:Gundam's WP:ANIME banner for what it would look like. Having the WikiProject as a task force under WP:ANIME just facilitates a central discussion related to articles under the scope of WikiProject Hentai. Having the project completely separate from this project makes little sense.--十八 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Juhachi, the Wikiproject is not a taskforce, it uses the Americanized definition. As no "hentai" genre exists in Japan. Furthermore Katawa Shoujo is an example of a bishōjo-style visual novel that WP:HENTAI covers despite it not being Japanese at all. The Teen Titans work and major websites (you know the type) would be included in this, despite also being outside WP:ANIME. Our scope is not limited to Japanese focus, but all sexually explicit or erotic depictions in the art style, which include clearly American works. So just like WP:ANIME avoids Megatokyo-type works, we'd include it if the subject matter was explicit. Afterall... how many people even know Shadman? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Katawa Shoujo is one of a very few exceptions. Besides, that article is already under the visual novels task force, a joint task force under both WP:VG and WP:ANIME. Keeping the WikiProject separate because of a few outliers makes no sense. The point of any WikiProject or task force is for centralized discussion to better improve a group of articles with different editors who share the same interest. They don't exist just for the sake of existing. WikiProjects and task forces go inactive if no one is actively improving the articles under its scope and/or if there's no discussion going on. How many editors do you know of who would be interested in actively improving hentai articles? I mean, other than the people already under this project, WP:VG, or WP:PORNO. And who are you to say that "hentai" should be just defined by what it means in America? Seems pretty biased to me. Hentai as defined in its own article (per Oxford) is "a subgenre of the Japanese genres of manga and anime, characterized by overtly sexualized characters and sexually explicit images and plots". Now tell me that isn't under the scope of WP:ANIME.--十八 02:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support task force under WP:ANIME - Our project covers so many Hentai titles that keeping the projects separate for the sake of a handful of articles (if there are those) makes little sense anyways. What our project doesn't cover other's do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai. This topic was discussed before in this section, I was the first to suggest the Hentai Task Force at that time. However, now I can see that it should be a WikiProject. The scope of Hentai is wider than you know, not just limiting itself to R-18 Anime and Manga. These can also include Japanese non-Anime style Pornography, but that's according to the original definition. If you apply the English definition itself, then that will limit your understanding about the subject in mind. Check on List of Japanese erotic video games and you'll find a list that's barely supported by 3 WikiProjects, and to think a Hentai Task Force can clean the mess up under WikiProject Anime and Manga? This is why I agreed to start the new WikiProject instead of a new Task Force. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This is the English version of Wikipedia though not the Japanese, if reliable sources define the word under anime and manga's scope we should follow this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • As you said, English. I want to say that I'm not the offensive type of person, but this is Not a free encyclopedia limited to the American knowledge. And about the definition of Hentai, what do you mean by "English" definition? I have implied "itself" on my previous above statement, saying that there is some sort of misunderstanding as far as I can see. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Honestly, it is not a voting matter. Another Wikiproject cannot compel or force to be tied to another and they can be similar like the Theater splits as noted above. With more then 2000 notable articles that need to be created or covered, many works are not even addressed. How about Kiyohiko Azuma, you know he started with ero. Right? Johji Manabe as well. Even Oh! great is one. How about Kouta Hirano and the Pokemon manga artist Toshiro Ono/Toshihiro Ono/Kamirenjaku Sanpei? Pen names and such a real pain to deal with, but its not the artists that are lacking coverage. The actual games are really lacking and even key ones that made major advances in the genre are horribly insufficient. The entire Rance series and most of the Elf works, I don't care if VG has a taskforce with you to deal with it, our coverage is sub-par. Even ones with animes are terrible. Words Worth anyone? Alright.. how about the largest English distributors? Media Blasters? Critical Mass? The defunct Central Park Media? Seriously you can't even get more then two sentences on US Manga Corps? WP:HENTAI needs to be a full Wikiproject because of its size and scope includes thousands of articles and much of the material which it will focus on is abandoned and left aside. By properly categorizing and setting our own importance and criteria and centralized discussion the Wikiproject can address these issues in a way that mere Taskforces cannot. Again, if it was 100-200 articles I'd agree, but we are dealing with 10X that number at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT then, articles are being maintained and Wikipedia has no deadline for things, it is a work in progress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So we're gonna start this WikiProject to "Fix it" then. Why not? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this is a voting matter. A wikiproject isn't made onthe number of articles fall in its scope. Its how distinct it is to merit one. And so far the range is pretty much tied to anime and manga related to not split from anime&manga. And I don't doubt that there are a large number of hentai (devil's advocate) but I doubt the number of "notable" hentai articles are reaching 2000 articles, and if they do, then most of them may not be notable.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't even know why Read or Dream is under the Hentai project, it is not an erotic anime. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A multitude of articles were mistagged by User:ChrisGualtieri; I tried undoing some of them, but many still reside. And this is a general reply to Chris. When you say "the Wikiproject can address these issues in a way that mere Taskforces cannot", I feel you don't understand that the difference between a WikiProject and a task force is purely a difference in wording; they both function the exact same way, whether it was apart of WP:ANIME or not. The difference, however, if that if the WikiProject is separate, it is more likely to fall into inactivity sooner and thus likely to die within a year or less. I thought you might realize that if it were a task force under this project that it might survive better, but if you really want them separate, be my guest. I've been on Wikipedia for over 7 years, so I've seen my fair share of projects and task forces come and go. The project will merely die within a year or so and fall into obscurity the likes of WP:BLEACH or similar.
Even if I'm wrong, it's unlikely that a large number of editors wanting to improve hentai-related articles will show up out of no where, thus defeating the purpose of having a WikiProject/task force. At this point, it looks like only you and Bumblezellio are willing to do this. General editorship on Wikipedia has declined over the past several years, and is still declining. You should have seen this place back in its heyday around 2007-2008; you would have seen more support for something like this back then. If people were going to improve hentai-related articles, they would have done so already because, as I've been explaining, all hentai-related articles are already under the scope of WP:ANIME per its own definition. To take a quote from WP:NENAW (which I would suggest you read): have in mind that interested editors will not appear out of nowhere just because there is a WikiProject. I would suggest you take this to heart and heed the suggestions of other, more experienced editors here and let us absorb the project for its own sake.--十八 10:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is tied to working solely on a Wikiproject and becoming a member to work on things, I have worked on articles under ANIME scope without being a member. Same with video games with the G-Zay matter. Did I miss tag a few Yuri articles, yes, but I'd be fixing that if I wasn't spending time here dealing with this. If we became a taskforce we lose our categorization, ratings and a fair amount of direction and push our NSFW content into here. Frankly, hentai is anime's dark secret, the sort of material that parents don't want their kids seeing and many editors of this project are not supposed to even be viewing such material. While Wikipedia is not censored, WP:HENTAI will be a platform to monitor and improve standards for all the articles. And yes that includes organizing and publishing our own pool of resources and such, though I must admit this will be as much of a cross-wiki matter with the Japanese Wikipedia content and editors. So yes, while Wikipedia's editor base has declined and more and more content is done by established editors, our coverage is still lacking. And that is why, unlike the defunct Bleach group, WP:HENTAI will not run out of material to cover. NENAW is an interesting essay, but we are a defined sub-genre of a major art form. We are the horror of movies, where even if the Wikiproject seems defunct or slow our article alerts will persist for ALL editors who wish to be involved with the more behind the scenes issues of Wikipedia. Now I reject the taskforce on all fronts, but I did initially begin by wanting to create a taskforce because of the overlap, but it is just detrimental to this group to do so. I know you may not agree with me, but in all this time, I have never labeled myself a member of the Wikiproject and I do not believe Wikiprojects really matter to wide-scope editors. Agree or disagree with me, I do not have to convince anyone here, mere existence will drive improvements and efforts around the focus the same way the defunct Dragonball taskforce does not mean the end of DBZ work, Goku continues to improve and same with the merge of terms like Saiyan. WP:ANIME absorbed the Dragonball Wikiproject and for good reason, it is of very small scope, like a band or TV show, ours is a large genre which consists of numerous sub-genres and that's reason enough for HENTAI to exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And those genre's are also connected to anime&manga. In the end, its just not worthy of a project. Taskforce is better suited.Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"...mere existence will drive improvements..." That was exactly what I was trying to say will not happen, especially in this day and age. Wikipedia is not getting any younger, and more experienced editors are becoming an endangered species. Think of it like the chicken or the egg. Articles do not get improved because a WikiProject exists. A WikiProject exists to facilitate (i.e. coordinate) the improvement of articles. In short, if there isn't an interest to improve articles, WikiProjects or task forces wouldn't exist, and forcing the creation of one when interest is minimal or lacking is not going to magically "drive improvements" because of its "mere existence". But you can believe what you want to believe, I guess. And you also mistagged a bunch of yaoi articles too.--十八 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just putting this out there but one of the reasons why I dont look for sources for hentai that often is the computer virus risk, you have to be very careful when looking for reliable sources when it comes to hentai. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

To those who oppose, this is not a fair assessment. For instance, Lucia Black has a strong and established grudge on me. Lucia, who is currently part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix is not calling for it to be a taskforce under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Despite a scope that is completely under VG, let alone a single company. WP:HENTAI is not governed by this project, while related we cover adult content and that includes some sexology-related side projects. I intended to announce the formation here, Juhachi raised the issue first. While you may not share my sentiments and some of you have reasons to rail against anything I do, I sincerely believe that ENWIKI will grow and develop from it. Who cares if it starts with 2-4 editors, it is not even half functional or developed. Editors like Knowledgekid87 are the reason I want to make this Wikiproject, Google is useless on just about anything pornography related, but there is no shortage of academic articles and books preventing me from getting this far on hentai. It has a long way to FA, but the Wikiproject's journey and development has just begun. Embrace it or shun it, just be glad I don't hammer the topics here and drive away the younger editors. Even this conversation is risking comfort zones of the watchers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems a little odd. First you want to talk about it and want more support, and yet you are not keen to the idea of talking about it openly and thus want it separate from WP:ANIME for those reasons. Am I understanding that right? Do you honestly think less people would be interested in contributing to WP:HENTAI if it was a task force under WP:ANIME because it might risk "comfort zones"? I don't even know what to say to that, honestly. I doubt you'd "drive away younger editors" if you talked about hentai-related content on this talk page. Anyone who's watched even a little bit of anime or read a little bit of manga knows how sexualized the media is, even in the most mundane circumstances. Hell, why do you think most shounen series have women with enormous boobs? So it pretty much comes with the territory.
Not to mention that your goals seem a little short-sighted. If you wanted to try to get hentai up to FA, I don't think you needed to establish a WikiProject to do so. Indeed, I doubt you'd get much help either way if the article has been stagnant and cruft-filled for as long as it seems to have been. Sure you can say that starting the WikiProject might help improve some kind of development of hentai-related articles, but I personally don't see it happening. Who else, other than you and Bumblezellio, are in support of the project? Has anyone else come forward?--十八 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Before I begin, I will like to apologize for any of the following offensive statement. So what is the harm to others for forming a WikiProject at this point? From my view, it's seems more like a threat rather than a comment. What's done is done. WP:HENTAI is already up and running at this point, so you don't need to continue barking at our business. Please refrain from hindering us any longer, and just reread WP:COUNCIL/G. We editors are trying to improve Wikipedia, and you're interrupting, saying that we need a Hentai Task Force instead? Why do you think I rejected the Task Force idea? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If that wikiproject becomes a task force, so be it. Previous attempts were that it handled media unrelated to video games such as the anime films, TV series, and CGI films. But consensus can change. Challenge it, I might even support. But at this point, you're not providing good arguments. Rather you admit you have no argument.Lucia Black (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANIME is its own project, WP:HENTAI is the 'adult' version with coverage of explicit works and non-Japanese works are included. We are related to WP:ANIME, but not bound to this project. The same way as Lucia is in the SquareEnix wikiproject and that wikiproject is not a taskforce of VG. We are a separate entity and will not discuss our matters here. For any issues or further discussion please go to WP:HENTAI and comment on our talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah okay, even though the majority of titles are under the anime/manga scope you just keep telling yourself that. "'adult' version" are you serious? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so basically WP:ANIME can't discuss or improve anything that's 'adult'? You keep saying non-Japanese works, but what are these works? Are there any examples other than Katawa Shoujo? But I can see this is getting us no where, as you seem to not even want to comment here anyway, instead wanting to split the discussion to WP:HENTAI under some supposed 'right' that you have to form this project outside of WP:ANIME against consensus. Have fun being the only two in your little project, because I can see you do not want to discuss anything with other editors. Instead, you seem to just want to go off on your own.--十八 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The above section is rather long, so I'll provide a nutshell:

--十八 21:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that this not a matter of butting into other's business or saying how one project is better than the other but as an idea that has a consensus and makes sense. I hope that we can all agree to a solution one way or the other and no bitter feelings last from the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose it should be a taskforce under WP:WikiProject Pornography -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    Eh, it wouldn't have to be one or the other if it came to that. For example, the visual novels task force is a joint task force under both WP:VG and WP:ANIME. This would make sense, though, since WP:HENTAI deals with pornographic material.--十八 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    That would work better, if it were a shared task force, than if it were an ANIME task force. Though, it is porn, so the porn project is the most logical parent. It already covers JAV. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whether the scope of WikiProject Hentai falls within WikiProject Anime and manga's scope isn't such a great argument, because this can be true for both WikiProjects and task forces. For example, WikiProject Birds falls within the scope of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, which in turn falls within the scope of WikiProject Animals, but no-one is arguing that WikiProject Birds should be turned into a task force of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles or WikiProject Animals. Rather, the usual metric for whether something should be a separate project or not is the number of editors who are interested in getting involved. At this point there only seem to be two editors involved, which makes me think that a task force would make more sense. Are there any technical aspects of the project infrastructure that wouldn't be possible if the project was turned into a task force? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    Most of the bots and related infrastructure play nicely with task forces. AFAIK the only truly insurmountable problem is if the task force wants to support a page that the parent doesn't want to have associated with it. Any page tagged by the task force is also counted in the parent's stats, with no exceptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per my reasons above, I just want to ask what harm is going to come if it is turned into a taskforce? Yes it wont be a project but has the potential to get more editors from WP Anime and manga involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - While there is overlap, article count is in the thousands and that is proper under the scope. Far smaller Wikiprojects exist like WP:SE which overlaps with WP:VG and it is independent despite having a mere 476 articles. WP:HENTAI basically needs to exist for the independent categorization, assessment and peer review according to WP:TASKFORCE. Another key issue is that our assessment and importance is going to be different, and for technical reasons a full Wikiproject is required. Talk:Toshio Maeda is low importance for WP:ANIME, but he is top importance for Hentai. As he created genres of hentai and is really responsible for a major shift, just like Hideo Azuma is responsible for starting the hentai movement under the cartoon-cute Tezuka art style which was a shift away from realistic art styles of the 1970s. Osamu Tezuka is outside our scope, actually 90% of the projects TOP articles are outside the scope. Even more for the HIGH priority. No one is going to remove WP:ANIME's banners from these overlapped pages either, focus can be shared and overlapped. Thus we need to remain independent for more then just the banners, but the organizational reasons as well.
  • (courtesy space)
  • If not for technical reasons we need to be separated at least consider the content. Many ANIME editors are probably not of age to even view this content, a separate task force page for discussion essentially needs to be made, which is why a full Wikiproject is easier. If we were to combine, WP:ANIME would have numerous topics about the explicit content as this talk page would be the main discussion point. Books like The Erotic Anime Movie Guide and Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society are key resources for our project, but would the group be content to have numerous explicit links be published here? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but a full Wikiproject is really necessary because a separate Taskforce will have a murky split and no vehicle for assessment and review and stifle growth in the long run. So combined with low importance tagging of WP:ANIME for pages like Futanari, do you really want a Hentai taskforce to be dealing with this subject matter right here? And to be completely fair, just about everything in this sector is terribly covered and wrong. Futanari stems from religious depictions and says absolutely nothing of its imagery and doesn't even offer up insight as to why. Its vulgar material, incredibly so, but it is best covered in its own Wikiproject for technical and content reasons. While we are under no obligation to be apart of ANIME, as under WP:COUNCIL/G, our scope and technical requirements are only served by full Wikiproject status, overlap or otherwise, any number of projects can express interest and tag the page. I'd PREFER WP:ANIME to consider us a taskforce or a related project and come to us like a taskforce page for discussion, but WP:HENTAI really needs it own space, I welcome any editor to join us and given the nature of the work, expect a larger service as a resource, guide and page for editors who do not formally identify themselves as such. A recent change/watch system (again... Wikiproject) will allow for monitoring and improving those articles in our scope and answering questions raised by other editors without flooding our watchlists. Not even WP:ANIME uses it, and if its 11,000 articles say anything, it'd probably be a waste of time, but for us it'd be key. In summary, many reasons point to full Wikiproject status, not Taskforce, the decision to do so was not careless and was the result of over a week of research and weighing of the options. Hopefully, with these reasons you'll agree with my actions and see my reasoning. Thanks for reading this important wall of text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    BannerMeta fully supports different importance/priority ratings for parents and task forces. I don't know whether it supports different quality rankings, but these should have less variation, since they're supposed to be at least somewhat comparable between groups for WP:1.0's work anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    If your concerns are about age appropriateness, wouldn't that argue for listing WPHENTAI under WPPORN instead of WPMANGA ? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:COUNCIL about this. The official advice on this subject is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope.

It is usually not a good idea to have two separate groups working on the same subject (because there are usually too few editors anyway), but it is not prohibited and you cannot force a merger. Ever.

The reason that we do not permit forced mergers is because a WikiProject is people, not articles. Imagine that your groups were real-world groups, like student clubs. And imagine that someone came along and said, "Why should we have a "Student Club for Anime and Manga" and also a "Student Club for Manga and Anime? We'll just force the second one to join the first." Do you think that would work? Or do you think a lot of the students in the second one would just quit out of disgust for someone interfering with their free choice of which people to spend time with (and which people not to spend time with)?

So here's what you can do: You can invite the new group to freely join you. You can offer to provide technical and bureaucratic support for them, such as making your banner display links and logos for their group. You can offer to host their pages as subpages. You can offer to provide practical and moral support. In other words, you can make joining you seem as attractive as possible. But ultimately, the decision about whether to join your existing group or to strike out on their own is entirely up to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Its not really a merge but rather renaming to be part of A&M.Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No, this is a proposed merger of two separate groups of people. You cannot "rename" people to be part of another group of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If this is the case and the project creator seems to have no intention of agreeing to a merge here I don't see how this convo can go forward. Seems to me like the result would be yes there is a consensus to merge and a lot think its a good idea but there can be no outcome. I would revisit this in another few months and check back on the Hentai project then, if no or very very few members have joined up then it might be a better idea to bring up a merge discussion again then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Does the creator automatically become the owner? Creating a project is a big deal and usually needs consensus first, so pushing a hentai wikiproject was a bad move.Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you I just don't know what the guidelines or rules if any there are for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What WhatamIdoing said. Even if a merge would seem to make sense by other metrics, there's no way you can force it to happen. As the WikiProject Hentai editors don't want to go ahead with a merge, there's really not much to discuss here. Let's give the project a few months to develop and revisit the situation after that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
not exactly a merge. Plus one already game up on the wikiproject idea (out of the two editors).Lucia Black (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this logic. Assuming the project doesn't gain many members in a few months time, a merge would still be impossible as long as ChrisGualtieri was against it, right? Are you suggesting that in such a situation Chris might be inclined to rethink the merger? I personally don't think so, seeing how strongly he thinks the two projects should be kept separate.--十八 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris is a rational person; given more time and information, he might change his mind. And if he doesn't, then you still cannot force him to join your group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have to, and "rational" is circumstancial. What I will say is, creator of a wikiproject doesn't mean they have ownership, similar to how an article or a policy is created. That said, not all wikiprojects are based on "people", some are based on just being a portal of helpful info and a place to CANVAS appropriately. Otherwise, people would wikiprojects left and right knowing full well consensus won't matter because they created it. With that said, someone can move the project into a task force within A&M's wikiproject and it won't be considered vandalism or disruptive.Lucia Black (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree here, it makes little sense to have a one person project with no support for it, it would be one thing if this was thought out but wikiprojects have not one person in charge but groups of people who make choices per consensus, something which was done here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh If s/he does not want support from this project, let him/her be. Hentai includes non anime and manga, so logically speaking, if it does not want to be a TF of WP:ANIME, I am perfectly fine with it. The only problem is the support given, but since obviously s/he does not want it, then why force him/her to? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Prove it.Lucia Black (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
So all hentai video games are "anime games"? Including Japanese video (photographic) strip mahjong games using real women models? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Some live-action is part of A&M's scope. And a lot of video games featuring anime and manga artwork is part of A&M's scope too. But even then, can there even be a hentai article dedicated to a mahjong game? I am well aware there are even panchinko machines with hentai on them. How about a compromise. It turns into Hentai Taskforce similar to Visual Novel taskforce, unlike bleach taskforce that has WP:AM as part of the title.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That only works if Hentai is a taskforce of WPPORN, not WPAM. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything, Hentai's meaning is not limited to Anime/Manga/Games/Light Novels as per the article, or any Japanese dictionary, and whoever created WP:HENTAI, from all the comments up there, obviously does not want our help. Like I said, if s/he does not want our help, why do we want to force him/her to receive our help? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it can be a task force of both. Also If you don't have to prove anything, then be prepared for any of your comments to be dismissed. I'm not taking you seriously.Lucia Black (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, it is not up for debate. That is final. You do not respect policy and have control issues. I try to be as nice as possible, but you continue to persist and be disruptive and disrepectful to any editor who disagrees with you. Being loud and having the last word does not mean you win, remember Wikipedia not a battleground. You have been warned about personal attacks and your behavior before. It is becoming as childish as your essay which is all bad-faith and attacking. Consider this the last warning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, if you don't even know the definition of Hentai, you are the one at fault. Hentai is not limited to Anime, it includes all forms of media, the burden of prove is on you if you say it is limited. However, the linked article's second source already give hentai in Japanese have 3 different meanings, and thus whatever the project/TF will be, it will cover more than things covered in anime, given the term is currently used as its second form in our case. What it is most usually being used for recently does not limit it to just that. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? A consensus was formed to make a taskforce out of WikiProject Hentai the only reason why it is not is because what is in place, so take your own words stop making personal attacks and WP:DROPTHESTICK with the argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the people of WP:HENTAI don't want to become a task force of WP:ANIME, then they shouldn't be forced to. I agree with the argument above discussing how WP:WikiProject Birds falls under WP:Animals but they remain separate. There are definitely some similarities between the two projects, but also some differences, so if both sides do not agree on merging together, they should just stay separated. I don't see anything wrong with that. - Camyoung54 talk 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Differences are minimal, they both share the same scope though. However you say oppose but your explanation says support. In the end, then we cn only compromise. This "wikiproject" can still be a wikiproject but still fall under A&M.Lucia Black (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_55&oldid=1143712501"