Talk:List of Oh My Goddess! episodes

• Archive: 1

Remove images or lose featured list status

There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones

There is a discussion concerning the images on this list at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose such a merger. There is far too much room for improvement in these articles. -- Cat ^chi? 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked over WP:EPISODE? If not, please read over it and address how the episodes can contain the information listed there. TTN 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by TTN (overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes) I'm firmly in favour of the merger for the tagged episodes of this cartoon. ShizuokaSensei 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a cartoon, it is an manga first and then an anime. Big difference.

I consider articles such as You're a Goddess? to contain enough material to disqualify as stubs. I do not consider their coverage as "excess", it is half a page summary of a full 24 minute episode. There are articles such as Broken Bow (Enterprise) that contain plot material on an act by act basis.

Also Wikipedia:Television episodes is merely a guideline not a policy. It should be treated as a guideline not a policy. You ought to have reasons beyond "it is in the guideline".

I also ask you, how is removing content rather than expanding the articles in question giving better coverage to the topic in question? Summarizing a show that lasted over 5 seasons (1 ova, 2 mini episodes, 2 recent anime) and a movie to few broken sentences isn't to the benefit to the encyclopedia.

The merge suggestion is giving over 1100 (18.5 hours) minute portion of the show a lesser coverage than an average movie.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a read of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Your suggestion of a merge is in conflict with that. -- Cat ^chi? 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon/animation/manga. Define it how you like; I'm not going to get into a dispute over the semantics of moving image classification with a rabid animation fan. The stand-out line from the notability guidelines for television episodes page would be Create pages for outstanding episodes. Aside from the already highlighted problems of overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes (not to mention what is overall an unquestionably poor standard of prose), I'm unaware how any of the episodes can be considered oustanding. Remember, we're talking about how the episode is outstanding in an out-of-universe context; ie: it's impact on the real world. Belldandy doing such and such to save the day at the last minute can never be considered outstanding, regardless of how exciting / life changing it may be to you personally. ShizuokaSensei 12:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if independence day or any other fictional work has any outstanding significance with that logic. After all Die Hard is merely an action movie with a hero saving the day in the last minute. Or take Hamlet for example, it is merely a collective killing in the last scene. Like it or not Anime/Manga is an important part of our culture. So the blanket argument you have there is flawed.

I agree that there is a lot of room for work with these articles. The plot summary in most of these articles isn't even that detailed. So fair use isn't an issue. The articles contain not a whole lot of (if any) trivia. I do not recall any of these articles containing quotes. I am uncertain what your rationale is aimed at. "It is in policy" or even "Jimbo said so" is a poor way to construct an argument. Please have an argument more than linking me to a few guidelines.

Have you watched the show in question? Do you realize this particular manga is among the most significant and longest running ones? This particular Manga is the flagship of its genre which started as a gag. Manga normally lasts a few years - often they do not even last a year. This one is ongoing since 1988. It is older than some wikipedians. People keep buying merchandise for it for the past 19.9 ~ 20 years (or else it would be canceled). Thats nearly two decades. So there is no question about the significance of the Manga/Anime in question.

Also, there is news that something "big" is supposed to happen during the 20'th anniversary of the show (either 25 August or 25 September) so there will be a significant amount of info with that.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the metric for outstanding? -- Cat ^chi? 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point and misunderstood my argument. Noone is suggesting that anime lacks cultural significance, nor are they suggesting that this particular anime is irrelevant. It certainly is relevant, and more than warrents articles for each season/format etc. The point of this discussion is whether individual episodes are notable enough to be considered encyclopedic in an out-of-universe conext and therefore derserve seperate articles. The simple answer would be No, and no amount of detailed plot walk-throughs or discussion of the plot can alter this. Drawing parallels to Die Hard is a patently false analogy. Look at the Die Hard article and you'll see more than half of it focuses on production details and the global reception / influence of the film. Finally, the idea that the encylopedic worth of individual episodes of this TV show are in some way analogous to Hamlet... well I'm not ever sure where to start with that one! Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. What will be will be. ShizuokaSensei 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't even prone to a discussion. You ought to check wikipedia policies and guidelines on consensus. A lack of content can be cured by expanding the articles in question, it is not a blanket argument for deletion/mergers. If you desire to "butcher" all episode articles, please come back when you have community consensus to that end. This set of articles are not you test case to play with. -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indented to save space. Suggesting I'm not willing to discuss the issue is rather confusing. Did you miss where I addressed your points one by one and expressed the reasons behind my opinions (ie: that an article for an individual TV show episode containing little more than a plot walk-through is counter to Wiki guidlines)? It seems you may have, because you have provided no counter arguments and have resorted to accusing of me wanting to "butcher" Wikipedia and to "play with" aritlces. Please try and remain civil. Mud-slinging does nothing to help your credibility. The reason I have no further part to play in this discussion is that you are not providing any convincing counters to the points made by myself and TTN, the editor proposing the condensing of these articles (or the person wanting to play with and butcher these articles as you wish to describe it). ShizuokaSensei 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why I am the target of a civility warning. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this on an episode review page that we have for when more views are needed. TTN 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)