Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Archives Older Nov '04 – Dec '05 -- Mascot 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Re: Cleanup section

Personally, I do not like it one bit. It's just a huge list of articles that fit between the former recognized articles and the guidelines at the bottom. Having to go through that every time doesn't make sense and it's a waste of time and space to constantly be manually updating it. I propose we create several categories like Category:Anime and manga articles needing expert attention which serve to direct those coming here to problem articles and at the same time making this page easier to navigate.--十八 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the huge effort involved in scrolling down an extra screen is worth sacrificing how effective the cleanup section has been; a lot of pages that have been languishing with tags have already been improved, a page I tagged yesterday got immediate attention, etc. This is exactly the sort of thing the project should be doing. I hear you on the more automated method, but the truth is, I might notice a page being added here manually and go help fix it, but I would never bother clicking on a link to a category. Doceirias (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What Doreirias Said. Seeing it up front and personal like that has made me pledge to work on removing one a week, in a way that hiding it away in a category would not. Also, to be fair, not many that have been added merely need additional information in the usual life-cycle of an article, but really do need cleaning up and straightening out. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But just think about it in the long run. In another year, let's say, there will probably be 3 times as many problem articles in that entire section. Do you really want that many articles listed on the project page which is meant to be well-organized and easy to navigate in order to help those who come here for answers? And you may be removing some, but I don't think it'll ever be fast enough because there will always be new articles being created and 90% will need cleanup in some regard. Eventually the back log will get so large that no one will want to touch it because it'll be like removing a pebble from a mountain. Which is why, seeing as how things are going, a category would make more sense.--十八 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I recommend creating a category or a subpage to list all these articles. The front page should be nice, compact and clean. See video game project's front page for a good example. --Mika1h (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - which is more important, appearances or function? I think the current arrangement will result in much more work getting done, and that should be the only thing that matters. It could probably be reorganized a bit, however. Given the quantity, they should at least be organized by date of tags... Doceirias (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I reformatted it so that it wouldn't be so long. However, I still think using cleanup categories and using switches in the project template would be a better option, as demonstrated by my prototype. For one, you don't have to come back to the project page, find the item on the list, and then remove it. Instead, you can simply turn the switch off. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea and think we should go with it. Looking at how it's formatted now somehow makes it look even more daunting with the first section filled to the brim with articles for cleanup.--十八 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You should see this list. It's a bot generated list of articles within these categories that doesn't have the project's banner applied to them yet. Though there are a few that false positives on there as well, and I'm still not sure if we should apply our banner to any of the Super Robot Wars articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiyotaka Furushima

Hello. I would like you to check on User:Kitty53/Test page 2, where I am testing the future article Kiyotaka Furushima. You may contribute. I don't find it notable enough yet, but I will with your help. You are very welcome to help me out. I am trying to find info on him.Kitty53 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for guidance on how to format a biography, and on the sorts of information to include. "He is 168cm tall, has a skill at calligraphy, and his blood type is AB." isn't very relevant information. For finding information, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan might be a better place to search, however you will probably find it difficult to find much information, as most will be in Japanese. It is usually hard to find information on notable seiyuu, and, from his list of credits, he he seems to be a minor seiyuu and unlikely to get much coverage. Collectonian (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of character articles

I'm half tempted to renaming the remaining articles to the List of (X) character format. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Collectonian (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly those in the Start-class group. That group has been the last to go through listas sorting since it is the largest group of list articles. But there are a number of them that use the old List of characters in (series) format and some that are just Character in (series) or Minor characters in (series). --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, however from the arguments currently going on in the FA talk page, it seems like there is some argument over the line between list and article, so those in Character in (series) are often seen as articles instead of lists (rather dumb to me, they are still lists, but oh well). Collectonian (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion that Collectonian mentioned resulted in the List of Halo characters being renamed Characters of Halo and nominated for GA-status on the grounds it is "more article than list" (or something to that effect). It'll be interesting to see how this move turns out.--Nohansen (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thing it is silly because at its core, it is still a list. It just happens to have elements of an article. --Farix (Talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Halo just passed the GA nomination and the reviewer recommended the article be nominated for FA. So, any opinion on where does that leave the other lists of characters?--Nohansen (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? It's often an arbitrary line between an article, a list, and an article in list format. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for one. And we should have a consistent naming convention across most of the articles within our scope. --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that some of these aren't really lists because they contain a high amount of actual content. We often think of them as lists because of the shared-topic format. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:STAND says stand-alone lists are "lists of links" or "usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area". But most of the lists of fictional characters aren't really lists of links, but character profiles organized in a list-like format. There might be something to what the editors at Characters of Halo did.

Should we rename all the Lists of anime and manga characters to "Characters of..." and treat them as articles rather than lists? After all, I remember a time when this project called for lists of characters be named "List of characters in (series)" if it is just a list, or "Characters in (series)" if it contains actual information on the characters.--Nohansen (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon project and problem with Copyvio

It seems Wikipedia: WikiProject Sailor Moon has not only allowed, but actually been encouraging linking to site that blatantly violates Wikipedia policies regarding copyright, and using it as a reference. On noticing it, I attempted to remove the link from the first place I noticed it List of minor Sailor Moon characters, however another editor pretty much doesn't care that it violates Wikipedia policy and continues to readd it, claiming the project as a whole will not allow the links to be removed. This site offers the ENTIRE Sailor Moon series, including the movies and PGSM, for download, as well as MP3s from the soundtracks, and literally thousands of images from the show. This is completely inappropriate, and as the parent project of Sailor Moon, I think we need to step in and put a stop to this. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Project Copyvio Violations. Collectonian (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They're list of references. It's clear several editors have ignored Policy for convenience. Fox816 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attribute the actions of User:Lego3400 to the project as a whole. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the list of references some, and I hope, as JuJube notes, the project as a whole will recognize that this is a series issue and will work to clean up that reference page and the articles. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Website review:

• Hitoshi Doi: While I've known him for several years, there is no getting around it that his website is still a fansite and frankly, I think there are better sources for VA information and other credits.
• The Manga of Takeuchi Naoko: A fansite dedicated to publishing unofficial translations of Takeuchi Naoko's works. This fails both WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS.
• Manga Style: Yes another fansite with an image gallery that skirts the edges of WP:COPYRIGHTS. Surely we shouldn't use a fan's original research to back up information on Wikipedia.
• SAILORMUSIC.NET: Surely we don't need a fansite to list songs, albums, and song credits, do we? It also violates WP:COPYRIGHTS since the music on the albums are available for download.

Farix (Talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While Doi's site is a fan site, it is well done, has a lot of information, and that information is rarely incorrect. I think discounting his site and removing links to it is doing a disservice to people reading the articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Nihonjoe. Doi's site maintains a very neutral tone throughout (even if English isn't his first language evidently), almost... encyclopedic. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And just how do you or we know it is accurate? Because if you can demonstrate that Doi's site is accurate, then you don't need Doi's site. But whether it is or not, it is still a fansite and can't be used as a reference under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to define a fansite that strictly, or at least as invalid, then a giganormous number of refs on WP would instantly become invalid. Just because Doi isn't paid for his work doesn't mean it's unusable to us. Similarly, SailorMusic.net -- which I'll grant at least used to offer stuff for DL if they don't any more (haven't check) -- what's wrong with using it for stuff like tracklists, etc? Those are verifiable by the media themselves, but it's not like someone doing an article on the music of SM is going to have every SM CD by default, so they have to get the info from SOMEWHERE, and that page is certainly has the info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is defined that strictly. We have WP:RS for a reason. There are a lot of bad references in WP that need cleaning out, and that are regularly done so when an article is hit by an editor cleaning it up for GA or FA. Tracklists are easily retrievable from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.jp, or CDJapan, so there is absolutely no legitimate reason to link off to some fansite, much less a site that has no respect for the copyrights of that material. The info can be found from legitimate sources, when people are willing to make the effort. Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see more people trying to ruin WP and being idiots. Ah well. Wake me up after you've purged the thousands of refs to good info that just happens to be on sites run by those who aren't payed for it. Since we're on the topic of Japanese CDs, start with Chudah's Corner, Soundtrackcentral, RPGFan, RPGamer...after all, even 15 year old ones OBVIOUSLY can be gotten from some RETAIL site. Of course a RETAIL site is just SOOOOOOOOOOO much better to link to than some HEINOUS so-called fan site. I'll just go replacing all the nice WP links with Amazon.com ones, since they are ALWAYS reliable, and it's not like we're PUSHING people to go buy from them, no, it's be such a HORRID GOATSONG to use good info from other places instead of them. Ah well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of linking to retailers (like Amazon), I don't know why editors do it since since WP:EL says links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are to be avoided. Even worse, many of this project's featured lists use them as references.--Nohansen (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not reference the albums directly for the track lists? But really, if you have a problem with Doi's site failing WP:RS and SailorMusic.net failing both WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS, then you should take it up at WT:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS. --Farix (Talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A tracklist doesn't need referencing anyway, the source is the primary source, I.E. the CD, much like the plot/summary of episodes and volumes. If you want to list it and don't have the CD, though, turn to a reliable source not some fansite which may or may not even have accurate information. As for linking to Amazon, the preference is, of course, to use something better, preferably the official site. But yes, for some stuff, Amazon.co.jp might be the only place one can find the ISBNs and release dates of the Japanese releases because the official site is long dead (and even then, the note is really only informative and primarily for other editors, as technically, the Japanese volumes are the primary source). Of the two, yes, Amazon.co.jp is still better than a copyvio fansite. Also, while I'm one of the first to do an EL smackdown, keep in mind that it is still somewhat flexible (otherwise, we'd never have official links to product sites :P). Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I've removed them from that ref page as well, with a note pointing here. Collectonian (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Amazon and notable retailers, would they not fall under exception? Quoted from WP:EL : Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article...-and not prohibited by restrictions on linking- .... Fox816 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the references taken out are used throughout the Sailor articles mainly the GA ones. This would most likely affect their status so the Sailor Project should focus on searching for reliable ones to replace them. How the articles passed GA with these references, if they were present at the time of the review, should atleast be looked into. Fox816 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's part of the unfortunately aspect of the GA review...an article is basically looked at and passed by one person. I'd be curious as to whether the person who passed them was part of the SM project, or if they even checked them. Much as I'd hate for us to lose GAs, I'd be inclined to give the project X amount of time to fix the issues, or put all of them up for GA review (or be bold and just delist them as they badly fail the qualifications with such referencing). Collectonian (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of work to be done. Experts on the subject could first try replacing the references with reliable ones before the articles are delisted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure just how many SM articles there are, or the number of links, but perhaps the first start should be removing them, and where they were used as a ref, replace with a fact tag and point here in the edit summary? Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up Sailor Jupiter- always liked her- er...anyways. If anyone wants to recheck the refs and clean out anyones I might have missed and double check the ones I did remove that would be great. Fox816 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Sailor Jupiter... hottest... uh, anyways... I'll check on the page for you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break: Doi site

Hitoshi Doi's webpage has been used as a source by Mary Grigsby and Anne Allison, who are two academics (*the only* two academics, AFAIK) who have properly published on Sailor Moon. Surely this counts in the website's favour as a source?? I'd also like to clarify that none of the SM GAs have been passed by someone in WP:SM.-Malkinann (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also see my argument in favor of the Oracle as a source at WT:SM. Meanwhile, I feel that there's a lot of unnecessary jumping around going on here. Yes, some refs have been removed, but most of them were backup citations for facts that had already been referenced. Those that were totally removed can be replaced in short order, so no need to panic about that, either. Meanwhile, I am very offended by the suggestion that we upgraded ourselves to GA. Since we're busily invoking the names of policies we've all already read, try WP:AGF. --Masamage ♫ 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought the question up at WP:RS and several editors stated that the Oracle and SailorMusic clearly violates WP:COPYRIGHTS and are off-limits as sources. But no one has said anything about Doi's site. However, I must ask what is on Doi's site that couldn't be sourced elsewhere if not directly from the work? --Farix (Talk) 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. Because Doi publishes so much stuff (I forget the exact page count in his huge database, but it's very large), it's an excellent unrelated, third-party source for information which might otherwise require using the work itself as a source. He and his site are extremely well known, he's used as a source for academic research, and his content is almost always correct (with a site that large, it's inevitable that a few errors would creep in, but they are pretty rare). While it could technically be considered a fan site, I think this particular site is so incredibly useful that it's time to invoke WP:IAR if Collectonian—and you, it would seem—are insisting on such a strict interpretation of WP:RS. His site has been around since the dawn of the web, and it has consistently been a useful source of information the whole time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Farix, Collectonian has not said anything on talk pages about Doi's site, but it was removed from WP:SM/REF, our copy-paste resource anyway as a "violation of WP:RS". I specifically brought it up on WT:SM and then here, as I believe that it being used as a source by two academics has to count for something, as well as the points that Nihonjoe has brought up. -Malkinann (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Use, but don't site as a reference. That's the recommendation coming from editors at WP:RS --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to cite it as a reference if you use the information from the site. That's only common sense for anyone who's ever written any sort of sourced paper or essay or article. You MUST give credit to any source you use, so if the editors at WP:RS are telling you to not cite sources you are using to build the article, they are suggesting that you plagiarize material (use it without citing where you got it), and that's just absurd. Doi's site has been cited in multiple academic papers and books, so regardless of what anyone else may thing, I think that establishes the reliability of the information found there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think quite what Farix meant. I may have the Japanese volumes of a manga in my hand, but considering I can't type kanji, I'll find an online list that I can copy/paste the kanji of volume and chapter names from. The source is still the volume, though, rather than the site. I think Farix is saying the same thing...finding a tracklist or what have you on a website is not the source, the CD itself is. You're just saving typing time by finding it elsewhere. Now, for additional stuff beyond just chapter titles, then yes, you would have to add the source. Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Has any attempts been made to find sources to replace Doi's? ...or sources been found that do such? Fox816 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Farix, could you please link me to this discussion you've started? In ways, it's difficult to replace Doi's site. I suspect it will also be difficult to replace other sites, but Doi's is in two papers, so it's probably got the most weight behind it. It's easy to replace "in issue X, y happened" with a reference to issue X - all we need to do is poke our people that own copies of the manga/DVDs of the show to verify. What's harder to replace from Doi's site are things like ratings, (over 10 years on) and for tidbits of development or merchandise information. When the academic sources say something we can use, we really really try and use it. It's just that there are only a few (academically) peer-reviewed resources out there, and they concentrate on certain areas. What should we be using? Apparently primary sources are (at least slightly) frowned upon for a subject which is fictional? -Malkinann (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Fansites, Fan translations, and WP:COPYRIGHTS though it has already died (not a ton of traffic there). The problem with Doi's site is that it does not meet WP:RS, even if it has been cited (Wikipiedia has been cited in a academic work, but we still can't self-reference ;) ). Does Doi give the sources for his information? If so, we need to look at those sources, and if not, then how can we claim that information is verifiable or reliable? If its both, it should exist in other non-fansite sources. Don't get me wrong, as a SM fan, Doi's site is fun and interesting, but for the criteria of Wikipedia, I don't feel it can be considered a reliable source, especially for making exceptional claims about things such as ratings and success. Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He did cite his sources and they are reliable. I back tracked them when I started on it. He cites fan books and various other sources. They aren't in-line by I found his sources to be from places that fans normally couldn't access, such as TV shows airing at the time, fan books which weren't translated. He also compounded the information and put it into his own words. He also managed to do an awful lot of cross referencing with fanbooks and Seiyuu books making comments like what the Seiyuu thought of the character. He also managed to make a lot of comments about arts, etc. The problem too, is that translations are also under copyright by Berne convention. Because it takes creativity and skill to be able to translate. Thus if you quote from a translation, then it's a copyright violation without citation. If you directly translate a title by yourself, then it's OR. I think it's safer to go with the citation of the translation that's validated as RS, than to go OR. So the idea that you can cite "Usagi/Sailor Moon/Act 1" won't work under Farix's pretense... because whoever translated that act 1, holds a copyright by Berne convention. (I was one of those crazy people that actually read and understood copyright.gov) This means you can't cite anything unless it's in Japanese, which then violates other WP policies, and thus you've dug yourself a nice little grave there. Hitoshi Doi did cite his sources, and they are reliable. And I did check with other people. And though you may not like it, translators hold copyrights too. So how would we translate all the Japanese SM titles into English and do the proper citations?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Translations are WP:NOTOR, actually. If you get the original sources, you absolutely can cite and reference them, with appropriate quotes. Doceirias (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if they aren't OR, you still have the problem of translating whatever volume manga and whatever episode anime. Without credit to the people who translated it according to the Berne convention it's still a violation of copyright, especially since the majority of people on AMP are not fluent in Japanese. As much as people don't want to admit it AMP is reliant in many capacities on fan translators. Those translations thus belong to the project/person that translated it unless a new translator comes in, which means that the project and those whose fandoms, etc are reliant on explaining foreign goods, would need a translator for the entire project. Hitoshi Doi translated many titles for the entirety of Sailor Moon and Alex Glover translated an 18 volume manga. Those translations belong to the people who translated them. Thus according to the copyright violation, those translations would have to have citations. Anyone willing to do complete translations for citations for the sake of the project and put it under a GFDL liscense? How many anime and manga does AMP cover? Doesn't this make it truly difficult to cite quotes, events and other happens? Or does this "not count" as "real" copyright violation to wikipedia even if the Berne convention and copyright.gov state that translations are under such protections? Last I checked, translations need citation too by MLA and APA standards. It also brings up questions to wikipedia at large if the translations are RS, if they are done in-house. Translation is not an easy straight-forward thing. (And I say this knowing linguistics, French, Korean, Japanese and working on Taiwanese Mandarin.) There are still arguments about translation on AMP.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only translated titles we should be using are the OFFICIAL English ones. If there are no official English one, there is no translation to use, period. It should be noted with the Japanese kanji and romanji only. Those titles are then listed. A citation is not needed for the primary work (I.E. the individual volume or episode) when giving basic information about it. Now if you are using a Japanese source, then no, your translation is not copyright if you put it here because anything you put in Wikipedia is automatically GFDL. Citations are not copyrighted either. And FYI, titles of books are not copyrightable, not even translations of them. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re copyright: GFDL isn't a release of copyrights. Individual revisions are copyrighted to the individual contributors; this is why maintaining page history is very important, for example in page moves.

re use of translated titles: The use of fan-translated titles is acceptable where no officialy-licensed translation exists. Additionally, there is no absolute requirement to use officialy-licensed titles; the reason we do so is because these are also usually the most common title. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a BAKA! Have you seen DIC and Cloverway's Dubs of SM Collectonian? They dub Minako as haveing to read Neo-Queen Serenity's letter with her imagination becuase it was nothing but weird symbols. (The orginal Had it entirely lacking in Kanji, something a 1000+ year old should be able to use correctly). Sailor Stars also has no offical translation. You don't seem to be familer with the subject matter at hand desptie your instance. Go watch all 200 episodes of the anime (subed, not dubed), all 3 speicals, all 3 movies, all episodes of PGSM, all the PGSM speicals, and some of the stage musical Like I have, and then you can comment on useing "Offical sources". Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manga/light novel anthologies

I want to start a discussion on the notability of manga anthologies, and also light novel anthologies. Should these manga and light novels, which are often drawn/written by well over a dozen different authors (notable and non-notable alike) be included in anime/manga articles? These anthologies aren't serialized in magazines, so only come out in tankōbon or bunkobon format too. I've seen some articles that include them, but the majority of articles I've seen do not, so I was wondering what everyone here thought about them. I myself don't actively attempt to include the anthologies since I don't think they're as notable as serialized manga/light novels, and the fact that they're created by a ton of different authors which would make listing all the separate authors in the article kind of a waste of space IMO. Are there any examples of GA/FA articles that include this info, or should we just leave them out unless they are really notable (as in published in English or have gotten positive reviews on them by third-party sources)?--十八 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should be included in the articles, as they are part of the media for that article. Just because they aren't serialized, doesn't mean we shouldn't be included so long as they are official works (i.e. no Dōjinshi/fan stuff). It doesn't have to be a huge mention, but I think, if we are going to include art books and the like in media, to be fair, such anthologies should be mentioned. They are rarely licensed, though, which might explain why many of them are not included. For an example where I have noted it (not quite GA yet, but working on it) is The Vision of Escaflowne, which has two manga adaptations and an anthology. The anthology is given a two sentence mention as part of the manga section, and I'll note it in the list of chapters I'm planning to add later. Collectonian (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? Something like the Bokusatsu Tenshi Dokuro-chan volume with stories by a bunch of other light novels? I'd say worth a mention, listing the contents on the series article. On the author's pages, mention the story they did, and the anthology title. Doceirias (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More specific, like series wise? What got me thinking was a discussion at Talk:Little Busters!#Adaptations: Books and Publications where we were discussing if we should include the manga/light novel anthologies for the series, and the last comment in the section by User:DarkS Umbreon states about including them in order to be comprehensive and give the readers a broader idea of the different media types. Also, I saw on Key's official website that they are promoting the first Clannad manga anthology volume, and I was thinking that if Key is promoting info on even comic anthologies, then I suppose they are notable enough, though it might just be a tie-in to their upcoming release of Clannad on February 29.

Regarding Escaflowne, I see that seven of the artists were listed, but were there only these seven, or were there more? And what do I do in the case of Clannad's anthology which has 19 (?!) artists?--十八 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All together, I think there were 15. Those were seven I could find names for and that were the most notable for mentioning in references. With nineteen, unless any art particularly notable, for the paragraph mention, just note that it features stories from nineteen different creators. If the anthology is included in the chapter list, the author names can be noted there. I'll probably remove that list from Escaflowne if I can find a chapter list for that anthology. Collectonian (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've written a short description of the four manga anthologies attributed to Little Busters! on my sandbox; is this how I should be doing it?--十八 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I'd mention them in order and don't forget the titles :P You may also want to put them in a basic graphic novel list with the ISBNs and release dates. Collectonian (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting them into the graphic novel list template would be pointless I think. The series is based off of a visual novel, so why should there be so much information on 4 manga anthology series? If I did that, I'd have to split it off onto another article, but that seems just a waste of time when the original media is the game. And I did mention them in order, or tried. Some of them overlapped, but I listed them in order of first-volume appearance, just as I do on regular manga serializations in determining which should be noted first; Clannad has four manga adaptations btw. And as for titles, except for the one noted, they're all self explanatory. The Enterbrain ones are called Magi-Cu 4-koma Little Busters!, the Ichijinsha ones are called Little Busters! Comic Anthology and the Ohzora ones are just called Little Busters!. It seems superfluous to note this when it's like this.--十八 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It may seem superfluous because you are familiar with it, but I wouldn't have been able to tell anyone the titles from looking at it because I'm not familiar with it. Remember, we need to look at it from the perspective of someone who has no clue. Collectonian (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about now?--十八 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Better :) Collectonian (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm just worried about the others. Ichijinsha released 17 Kanon manga anthologies if you can believe it. There's 4 others by 3 other companies too. Anyway, thanks for the help.--十八 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime episodes

While clearing through some of the articles beginning with "The" I came across a few random episodes that hasn't be merged or redirected. I have created Category:Anime episodes and place them in there for the time being. Once the ArbCom injunction has been lifted, we can figure out what to do with them. --Farix (Talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime of the 2000s

I've begun sorting Category:Anime of the 2000s into subcategories by year as the category has become very large. Anyone who can help by doing 10-20 (or any number, really) is welcome to help. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the categories be named "[year] anime"? It would be consistent with other art forms. --Mika1h (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to have a bot go through and change them all, sure. They've been this way for quite a while now, and there are thousands of articles categorized this way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm updating a few of them right now Highwind888 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. What about series that have multiple anime adaptations released in different years like Kanon which had a series in 2002, an OVA in 2003, and another series in 2006. Should we be listing all three categories, or just the earliest one? I'm inclined to say all three, or at least 2002 and 2006 since those were done by two different animation studios. I see the rationale for only listing the earliest date for video game categories like Category:1999 video games since all the subsequent releases are relatively the same game, but these are very different anime we're talking about. Further, what about anime like Higurashi no Naku Koro ni which had it's first season in 2006, and it's second in 2007, but both were done by the same animation studio and were very similar aside from the animation quality.--十八 07:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At first I was including the cats for each adaptation and season, but after this edit I think the answer might be just the first from each "type" (TV series/OVA/film). —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should get more consensus on this. I too have been adding them for each subsequent release, but after I saw you removing some of the double releases, I came here to ask.--十八 08:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep the multiple cats, but then you have long-running series like Doraemon and Sazae-san and even Bleach and Naruto etc... so to keep things simple we either need to cat only under the year of initial release, or work out what form of release qualifies for multiple release cats and make a guideline. Shiroi Hane (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was to only add a series to multiple categories where there's a distinct break between the series; for example, Bleach would get just one for the TV run, Naruto would get two (for Shippūden), Shakugan no Shana would get two (for Second), and so on. —TangentCube, Dialogues 11:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the idea. One thing to note (in the School Rumble case, for example): if the second season of a TV series has a subtitle, it doesn't count as a new series, so it should only be categorized under the year the first series began. While it's nice to categorize things as much as possible, it can also get out of hand. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You've contradicted yourself here - by the rational you state here, Shippuden is a subtitle and shouldn't get a category. I don't really see a need for more than one category, for the first series; if later series appear a year or so later, even with a Part II added to the title, we don't really need to add another category unless we're dividing the pages as well. For example, Ghost in the Shell - the main article should only get an Anime of the 1990s category, rather than four or five categories for each series; those tags can go on the page for each respective work, since each movie/TV series has a page of its own. But if all the TV series are covered on one page, like Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei, then we only include a category for the first anime. Make sense? Doceirias (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ghost in the Shell doesn't need to be categorized as an "Anime of the 1990s" since it's about the franchise and the film has its own article. But anyway...

How about categorizing the redirects (e.g. Jubei-chan 2 as "Anime of 2004" or The Big O II as "Anime of 2003")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohansen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's better than putting a single article in multiple categories, as at least this way the full name of the series would be in the category. I guess the question is "is this acceptable categorization?", to which I think "yes". —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So what category would go on a franchise page? Only the original work? I like the idea of categorizing the redirects; definitely better than including multiple year categories on a single page. Doceirias (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Franchise articles don't need year categories. --Mika1h (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry about Doraemon and Sazae-san; both of those have been around for ages. The only categories right now that apply to this categorization is anything from 2000 onwards. And I like the idea about adding one for each distinct series, especially if the title changes like Minami-ke and Minami-ke: Okawari or Higurashi and Higurashi Kai.--十八 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly done; I've skipped several series, pending further discussion on the above question. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When there's a clear distinction between different releases, e.g. seasons or OVAs, I think there should be multiple cats. That's what everyone seems to think and have done anyway, so lets just have it that way. Highwind888 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's in WP:MOS-AM#Content #5; the question is how to handle multiple TV series or OVAs. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I see about the multiple OVAs... Multiple TV series should be ok since they are usually span a period of time, so I would class each as different, but OVAs is usually short and can span a few years... Well, for the Anime still in the 2000s category, I would personally subcategorize into the following:

• Digimon: 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2006 due to the different seasons with different storylines
• Ghost in the Shell: 2002 and 2004 for the seasons, and 2006 & 2007 for the Movies. This is a page encompassing the franchise, it should have multiple years.
• Memories Off: 2001, 2004 and 2006 for the 4 OVAs
• Sakura Wars: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2007 as per List of Sakura Wars titles
• User talk:Ceauntay20: 2007
• Yona Yona Penguin: 2009 planned release date

This is only what I would have as the category, so it's only a suggestion. Feel free to agree/disagree. Highwind888 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The alternative proposal in the other fork of the discussion (summarizing here for comparison) would have this a little different; only the year of the first anime adaption, with the categories added to redirect pages for the subsequent adaptions/seasons/oavs. No years at all on franchise pages. When browsing the category, all seasons are represented; when browsing the article, only the most relevant year exists and avoids cluttering the page with five different categories. I think this is vastly preferable. Doceirias (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that too, especially with no category for franchise pages. It's rather pointless since it's really a summary page. I'm rather new to Wiki, so I don't know the extent at which certain things can be done; if it can be done to only show relevant years, that would be preferrable over my suggestion. Highwind888 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust there's no objections to categorizing redirects, then? —TangentCube, Dialogues 13:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin manga

Today I began writing in User:Tintor2/This is my writing section the list of manga of Rurouni Kenshin. There is a little problem with the Viz Media version: the website [1] does not give the release date of the first volumes and another problem is that the volumes I have are in spanish, should I translate or ask for help? If anybody wants to help is welcome.Tintor2 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the latter, I can't speak for others, but for the VIZBIG releases, I've mentioned it in prose and then added a second table. I've done the same with kanzenban re-releases. It generally works well, though of course the chapters go to a stand alone list there. For the release dates, AnimeOnDVD might have some, otherwise they can be looked up at Amazon. As the month/year are printed in each volume, you wouldn't need to cite Amazon as a source for that. For question three, ask for help :) I have the first 13 volumes, with the rest on order now, so I can offer some assistance if you'd like. Collectonian (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My volumes are spanish, and they are not from Viz, they are from Ivrea. About the chapters, I would be grateful if you help me with it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have volumes 1-8 and 19, 21-28 of Viz' Rurouni Kenshin manga. What do you guys need? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I've put in the chapters, ISBNs and release dates for volumes 1-13. It will probably be a week or so before I received 14-28, so Sesshomaru, you want to fill in the same for 19 and 21-28? Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Comics

Hi,

I've encountered a possible conflict between this project and the Comics Project. User:TheFarix recently removed a whole host of Manga related articles from the Comics Project. I'm wondering if this is something that this project has come to a consensus on. If not would it be polite of me to begin the process of readding these articles to the Comics Project. Stephen Day (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This was also posted on the WP Comics talk page here. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense to your project intended in any way, but since manga is a subcategorization of comics, what you're doing is adding a redundant category to the articles that's less specialized, ala tagging everyone in Category:Living people to also be in the root, Category:Humans. Unless there's a compelling reason that a specific series is especially relevant to the comics project (for example, a mangaka who also had published titles that were for western comics companies), I see no need to clutter the talk pages with both banners. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, you will also find the extensive discussion above at #WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN tagging correlations. We first started discussion the double tagging between WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN and the discussion snowballed from there. But also WP:COMICS did previously decided to avoid adding their banners to articles about manga so as to avoid clutter on the talk pages. After all, the WP:COMICS's template is a behemoth compared to WP:MANGA's template. --Farix (Talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I've stated, I wasn't aware of this. Stephen Day (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edits I did to to restore the Comic Project Tag with one exception. I left the tag in place on the discussion page of Manga outside Japan. The focus of that article seems to go beyond the narrow scope of this project and I feel the article is best served with both tags on its discussion page. Stephen Day (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely a fair enough double-tagging. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Since not everyone in the project may have the MOS on their watchlist, it should probably be pointed out that there is an on-going discussion of the demographics fields in infobox that has resulted in some infobox changes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Demographics. Collectonian (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anime films" vs. "Japanese animated films"

Why are those two separate? Aren't Category:Anime films and Category:Japanese animated films basically the same thing?--Nohansen (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anime films," which is well-populated, seems to be a subcategory of "Japanese animated films". The only other things contained in the latter are a Hayao Miyazaki category (surely counts as anime?), a Cardcaptor Sakura article (definitely counts as anime), and The Old Man and the Sea (1999 film), which was actually made in Montreal (its only connection to Japan is part of the funding). So yeah, I'd say delete "Japanese animated films" as redundant and mostly improperly-populated. --Masamage ♫ 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, except its just occurred to me--"Anime films" can't really go in Category:Animated films by country, can it? So maybe everything in the anime films category should be moved over instead? I have no idea. --Masamage ♫ —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that situation before and I arrived at the same conclusion. The two categories do seem redundant, but I agree it doesn't make much sense in having a "Anime films" category in the Category:Animated films by country, as many people aren't aware that anime refers to Japanese animation. So maybe we should indeed move everything to "Japanese animated films". On the other hand, we could just assume everyone knows what anime means and those that don't will click on the link and find out. In that case, we should just delete the Japanese animated films category. The way that it is now, makes it seem like there are almost no Japanese animated films at all.:) Cattus ^talk 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whichever we choose as the "correct" one, we can make the other softly redirect to, so it's not a major issue, really. I'd weakly suggest favoring consistency by keeping Category:Japanese animated films as the main one. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll fix the categorization on the Old Man and the Sea film. --Masamage ♫ 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with keeping consistency. After all, "Japanese animated film" is, by definition, "anime", no matter what some fans would have you believe (and to furthur it, all animation is anime, if you're speaking Japanese, but eh...). I'm not surprised to see the Miyazaki films seperated from the rest though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected Category:Japanese animated films to Category:Anime films. Now I know some might wonder why keep the other one at all? Well, listing Category:Anime films alone in Category:Animated films by country seemed a bit odd, so this way it displays as "Japan" and still goes to the Anime films cat. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also done this for Category:Japanese animation. There were a few pages in there that were given more appropriate categories. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anime/Manga Company Articles

In looking at the rather horrible state of most of our anime/manga company articles, and their all over the place formats, I think we, as a project, should come up with a set of guidelines for anime company articles to add to our MOS, using the Companies project MOS as a starting point. Either way, I think maybe we should make a taskforce for the company articles, for those interested and willing to work on them, get them better formatted, referenced, and monitored for grudge vandalism.

More importantly, though, I think we really need to address the issue of "lists of titles" that flood the articles, such as Madman Entertainment, Geneon, etc. We seemed to be on a start with the categories, but do we want to make that the standard, see about maybe getting some kind of bot addition of the cats to articles, and axing the lists all together, or do we want to keep them all and standardize them as Lists of, such as List of Tokyopop publications (which is also a mess with no lead, context, etc)?

Personally, I'd like to see the lists in articles go completely and be replaced by categories. Its easier to maintain, and has more eyes making sure stuff isn't miscategorized. If lists are kept, I think we need to seriously step up the game on monitoring them. Either way, I think we need to tackle this issue, and put our virtual feet down, one way or the other. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem of getting rid of lists altogether is that this reduces the number of links to an article, thereby reducing the odds of someone running across the article. The whole point of the wiki-style of doing articles is that there are a multitude of inter-article links which tie everything together. If you get rid of them, you defeat the purpose of using a wiki in the first place. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it really reduce the links that much? The company articles wouldn't lose any links at all, while the individual articles might lose one (unless its one of the company's top titles, which would probably still be mentioned in the text). I don't think that goes against the idea of wikis, otherwise we wouldn't have categories at all. For those companies with dozens if not hundreds of titles, a category is a more appropriate way of sorting, to me. That's the purpose of categories. Collectonian (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you plan on removing the lists of titles from the articles, the obvious solution is to make the category a see also link. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with creating categories in favor of lists since they're easier to maintain and it makes the article look nicer rather than just having a huge list. Same goes for TV stations that air anime like Chiba TV which has a large list that should be in a category like Category:Anime broadcast by Chiba TV.--十八 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that was my original thinking if we go with cats. This is already partially implemented on A.D. Vision. Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of light novels

Can we please get rid of this article. It's poorly formatted and Category:Light novels does the same thing.--十八 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A very pointless list. I'd support an AfD for that. At best, a few highlights in the rather short light novels article would suffice, perhaps to note some of the first licensed, or ones that have gained unexpected popularity (or in the case of DMP's first releases, infamy). Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eponymous mangaka categories

Category:Rumiko Takahashi has been nominated for deletion or renaming to "Works of". Do we have any naming guidelines re. mangaka or other involved people in the industry who may have their own categories? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Category:Osamu Tezuka? Only other one I can think of. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's Category:Masamune Shirow, Category:Clamp (manga artists), Category:Mitsuru Adachi, Category:Hisaichi Ishii (those last three subcategories of Category:Manga artists), and possibly more. Seems a bit random. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, let's look outside the genre. Category:Jane Austen looks as good a prototype as any. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering, do we want to keep said categories as named after the mangaka or rename to "Works of" said mangaka? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping them at just the author/artist name as that allows for inclusion of related articles which may not necessarily be works (like the article about the author/artist, for instance). It's just a broader range. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments are welcome at the deletion entry if it's felt that it is worth keeping or renaming. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC on FMA issue

Over at List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, there is an issue over the use of Ishbal vs. Ishval that ended up resulting in the page being locked for awhile. User:Egan Loo (who claims to be a former Viz employee who worked on earlier volumes) insists that we should use Ishval because it is the "correct" spelling, however Ishbal is the official English name from the anime series, and from most of the manga (apparently Viz first had Ishval, then changed to Ishbal). Both I and User:TheFarix explained the various reasons why we should continue to use Ishbal, but he continues to argue the case. At this point, we're just going in circles, so I'm asking for other comments from the project (aka, next step in the dispute resolution process).

This could potentially have wider sweeping implications within the FMA articles, which are currently all over the place with which they are using, and if it is consensus that we stick to Ishbal, then the other articles need correcting, especially Ishval. For the discussion thus far and to offer comments either way head to Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes#Ishval vs. "Ishbal". I also made a subsection under that discussion to make it easier for commenting, since the first part is rather long as it is. Collectonian (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify some points, Ishval is also an official English spelling, and it happens to be the one that the creator (Hiromu Arakawa) created and used herself. Consistency does not take precedence over accuracy, which is what imposing one spelling, as opposed to including both, would do. There are articles that include more than one spelling, as per guidelines. Egan Loo (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is the way that the author romanizes the name doesn't mean that it is the name that is best known among English readers. Wikipedias MOS is pretty clear on this, especially since both translations use "Ishbal" instead of "Ishval". Use the term that English readers will be most failure with. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that "Ishbal" is the spelling most familiar among English speakers now, but my suggestion was to include both "Ishbal" and Arakawa's Ishval, which is also per guidelines. Egan Loo (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The only time an alternate romanization/spelling should be given is on the Ishbal article itself. Just the same as with Brazil and Brasil. It, however, should not be given at every occurrence. We do the same thing for people's names whose romanization also varies. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen is a discussion on how to treat all proper names in the series, perhaps on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist — the current discussion is sure to have ramifications for all the FMA articles, including the highly-fractured character pages, and we should probably hash out the spellings we're going to use across all of them. —TangentCube, Dialogues 13:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That probably would be wise as well, so done Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist#Proper Names in FMA Collectonian (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to

Help me categorize articles that belong in Category:Funimation Entertainment. I'm about to start in a jiff, just gotta look over a couple things in my watchlist. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few, and think that's all I'll be doing tonight. Exhausted... of... editing. Well, Properties licensed by FUNimation should help (didn't even think about it at first, goes to show how tired I am). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I know the feeling. I wish Pearl were back up so we could with all of these quick fast and in an hurry. To bad we don't (seem) have anyone who could right a bot to deal with it as a one time thing. Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Done most of them. Out of time, so someone else'll have to finish! Highwind888 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I finished the rest I think. Rezumop (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Inukami!

I have pretty much finished cleaning up this article, but there still remains the inclusion of a plot section. Seeing as I have never watched the anime, I cannot do this myself. If there is anyone in the project who has seen this anime and is willing to write up a paragraph or two for the plot section, it would be greatly appreciated.--十八 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some of it but not enough for writing paragraphs. However, I'll discuss the genres on the talk page if needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Any help would be great. I was planning on translating the plots found on the Japanese wiki, and the anime's official website if I had to, but I believe it would turn out better if someone who has actually seen the series wrote up a description. It doesn't help that my translation skills aren't 100% either.--十八 10:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the cleaning up! Looks excellent. I've watched the whole series, so I can put up some kind of plot summary soon. Have to rewatch some of it though. Highwind888 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lupin III (anime)

I've done a few updates here and there. If there is anyone bold enough to make the page look [somewhat] as good as its manga counterpart, by all means, feel free. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I never watched Lupin before, but "it's manga counterpart" article has a large section about the anime and most of the reception section is not about the manga. Is it not possible to merge them? Rezumop (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...unless they are significantly different, the two should be merged per the MOS. Collectonian (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article actually seems to deal with the franchise as a whole. There were 3 TV series which ran for more than 200 eps and an uncompleted series, Lupin VIII. Something that ran for that long I think has the potential for expansion, however not many editors appear to have seen it. However the 3 TV series articles, especially for Shin Lupin III and Lupin III Part III, are all short. How about merging all the info currently in the 3 separate TV series articles into one article [e.g., Lupin III (TV anime series)] and migrating the relevant info out of the main Lupin III article into that? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The guideline gives us set titles so [[Lupin III (TV anime series)]] won't cut it. If it hasn't already been done, merge the anime-related content to Lupin III (anime) before any page moves are made. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More like migrate the info re. each series into its respective page. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. But who'll do it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Magazine subject archive

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines, in general the magazines listed there are those that cover anime and manga rather than those that simply contain anime and manga. Does Shojo Beat contain anything that could be considered coverage? I only picked up the first issue, and never got another, and I don't remember if there was anything that could be considered coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

While the bulk are the manga chapters, it does also have articles and interviews with manga-ka and discussing anime and manga, as well as some Japanese cultural articles. It also often has some background/production info on the titles serialized, particularly when they are first introduced. Collectonian (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm fine with it being listed there. I just didn't remember what was in it, since it first came out almost three years ago and I wasn't terribly impressed with it then. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I think the earlier issues were pretty short on extra content, but they've been expanding to add in more content around the manga. :) Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that impressed me the least was their choice in manga. If I was the editor, I would have picked far different series, ones that actually had some depth to them rather than the shallow dreck found in that first issue. Oh well... ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

I've begun some of the much needed clean up efforts with the various Tokyo Mew Mew projects. To that end, I've fixed the main article (which was anime focused) to focus on the manga, merged back in the two manga articles (first versions and no need to be separate) and the article on a side chapter from one manga volume. I also did some massive clean up of the Tokyo Mew Mew article, including fixing the infoboxes, doing a complete rewrite of the lead, MOS fixes, and removing a bunch of OR/NPOV stuff. To continue the efforts, I've started two discussions on the main page regarding the character articles and the lists of episodes. I'd love to get some input on both of those ideas.

I've also AfDed two articles. Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs, which is fairly false, and lists two manga extra stories, and two video games as being "spin-offs". The games and a La Mode are already covered in the main article, and the side stories should be covered in the coming chapter list. The second article, List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew, I felt was far too lacking in notability for inclusion. The bulk of the list contains one-episode characters and basically just regurgitates the plot from individual episodes. That's what the episode list is for. I've already listed those in the del sort page, but agree or disagree, project input would be good here as well.

And, of course, help is always appreciated if anyone wants to join in the effort :P Collectonian (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I speedily closed the character list per the ArbCom injunction (see the notice at the top of this page). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the notice there, and I do not think the AfD should not have been speedily kept. The injunction does NOT block the creation or discussion of AfDs, nor the closing of an AfD as delete. The article just can't actually be physically deleted until the injunction is lifted, which should be soon as its only missing one vote to close and that person is supposed to do today. Either way, the injunction is not a reason to close the AfD. Collectonian (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian is correct, the AFD was improperly closed as there was NO legit reason for the AFD to be speedy kept (the injunction just means the AFD would have to staty open and be re-listed every 5 days). TJ Spyke 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we are not going to keep relisting and relisting an AfD discussion. It's better to just close it for now and wait for the injunction to be lifted, then list it again. If we keep relisting articles like this, the number of articles would balloon to an insane amount. And yelling abbout it isn't going to change that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the List of Minor characters is now back in AfD since the injunction has closed, as I knew it was about to when I did the original AfD.... Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As another note, the new List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes is done, however there is some mild disagreement over the issues of the titles. 4Kids renamed the episodes, but those are still the "Official" English titles (all hatred for the company aside). As they only acquired 26 of the episodes, the new list has the Mew Mew Power episodes in the season 1, and no English titles in the second season. As the show never aired and no one else has acquired an English license for it, to me there are no English titles unless we just randomly pick our favorite fansub group's choice, or do our own translations (which seems too OR to me). Another editor feels we should provide translated English titles as well. Additional thoughts would be appreciated. For this specific situation, please post here Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes#Translated Japanese Titles, though I think a more whole discussion on dealing with English titles for unlicensed series might not be a bad thing, as it seems like it isn't really addressed anywhere. Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do your own translations. Translations are not OR. Doceirias (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a simple translation of an episode title doesn't seem like OR to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- translations are not OR. See WP:NOTOR. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been a handful of editors who argued that translations are a form of original research, but the idea has never been adopted by the larger community. Instead, the larger community has more or less adopted the position that translations are not original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my question then is whose translation is correct? What comes out of Babelfish (hideous), whatever someone's favorite fansubbing group says it is, or whichever editor can proclaim the highest Japanese reading capability? Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Like all Wikipedia editing where you are summarizing what someone else said, it's a collaborative effort. :-) I'd avoid Babelfish though, except as a very last resort. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider say, the case of British vs American English, usually what's chosen is what fits best , depending on the topic. If nothing is particularly right, it defaults to whatever was first. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't trust the source, then don't trust the translation unless you can verify it yourself and where possible (in particular names or terms) included the Japanese text and direct romanization. I wince when I see something like the first line of Lena Sayers. As a translation neither Lena not Rena is techncially incorrect and both are real names, but back when she had just a small paragraph on the main article page I corrected her name multiple times based on the spelling in an official artbook/mook before giving up. I believe it remained incorrect until the English release confirmed it yet the scar is still there. I prefer not to remember the fighting with Doremi-fansubs fans over terms like "meister"/"my star" etc. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

End of the temporary injunction

The arbitration committee has reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you all for your cooperation. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. TTN is "is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is bad merging non-notable character articles? Does somebody benefit with that? Im more than confused. --Tintor2 (talk) 17:,06 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your persopective. If you spent a long time creating the "non-notable" article then yes, you would see it as a bad thing. The real "bad thing", however, is warring over it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks. But is also bad for articles that are in the middle of the merge, like the ones of Pokemon of Yugioh GX. Here and here are.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:,47 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging non-notable character articles isn't a bad thing in the broader scope of Wikipedia as a whole. The problem with TTN is he kept nominating notable (not to mention large) articles for merging. It was really annoying since almost all the other editors agreed that the articles didn't need to be merged but he wouldn't drop the issue. Well that's how it was on the two articles I was involved with where that happened. As for the injunction: I never really knew quite what it was and still don't, but it doesn't really affect me as I don't delete or redirect articles very often anyway. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)