Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

Anime and manga by year of release

Okay, I got a bot to go through our articles and make a list of articles which are not categorized by year yet. It will take a little fine tuning as this is just the first pass, but we now have a list of over 6300 articles to go through in order to sort them into the appropriate Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release categories. If you find an article or category which should always be excluded in the future, please add it to the list on this page. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like the majority of the articles aren't actually about anime or manga series... at least not main articles. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A large, large number of them are people. I'm also seeing visual novels (many with no apparent anime or manga adaptation). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always list them (or a specific category) on the ignore page. This is more fine tuning (see my post below). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And pretty much *all* of the "List of X" articles should be removed as well. I may go through and list a bunch on the ignore page. —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more effective to find out which category all the "List of..." articles are in, then list that category. This can also allow you to make sure the list isn't over categorized or categorized in both a parent and child cat. I found a lot of that when sorting articles into the individual year cats. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Lists of manga chapters, Category:Lists of anime television series episodes, and Category:Lists of anime and manga characters (all three are subcategories of Category:Anime and manga lists). —Dinoguy1000 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added them to the ignore list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the ignore page work? IF (<has project banner> AND <is in category on ignore page>) THEN (<ignore page>)? It doesn't seem to include subcategories, either... —tan³ tx 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's maintained by hand. IMHO, it would have been better for the bot to go through and only look at articles which have an animanga infobox, but... meh... I'm too tired to really think about stuff like that right now. —Dinoguy1000 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can see the original request here. Yes, there are some articles which shouldn't be included, but that's more an issue of fine tuning the bot results. I'm waiting for a response to see if the ignore list will work. This first list is only a first pass. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second pass, which used the ignore list, knocked over 2000 articles off the list. I've expanded the ignore list a bit and just asked to have the bot run through it again. Hopefully, it should knowck another decent chunk off the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The third pass has knocked another 2000 articles off the list, so it's much more manageable now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the alphasorting finally got fixed... (I'm not OCD, honest! I'm CDO - it's like OCD, only with the letters in order, like they're supposed to be!) —Dinoguy1000 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted link clean out

All links to Onemanga.com, anidb.info, and animenfo.com have finally been blacklisted to keep folks from continuing to readd them! However, there are 61 links to OneManga[1], 26 to AniDB[2], and 270 to AnimeNFO[3] that need to be pulled from various articles. Anyone want to help clean these out. They primarily need to be removed from articles, images, and from article talks that haven't been archived yet. User can remove them from their own user pages if the links are blocked when they go to edit next time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AniDB is done (easy set). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help just as soon as I get home. School comp ;P) I'll take on Onemanga.com if they're still around later. Itzjustdrama? 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but a quick question. Should Mangafox be blacklisted too? It's similar to Onemanga, but it's not really as bad. [4] seven results total. Itzjustdrama? 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so. For now, I think just removing the links would work since there are only 7. If it gets to be a problem like some of the others, then a request for blacklisting should probably be made. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And remove all links unless it's on a user page or archives, right? Itzjustdrama? 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all links should also be removed except from user pages and talk archives. In regular article talk pages, I've been noting [LINK REMOVED] just so folks know something was there, but otherwise just straight removal works.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just finished now. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on animenfo.com list from the bottom up. Itzjustdrama? 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As an update, OneManga and AniDB are done. AnimeNFO is down to 113 links so getting there! Thanks Itzjustdrama for tackling the bulk of those :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished cleaning out AnimeNFO list. :) Itzjustdrama? 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To make a long story short, no scanlation sites should be linked on Wikipedia. Although, it is fine now. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. If anyone spots any others getting heavily added, give a shout and we can get it blacklisted. It seems like the only way to really keep them out long term. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather both dislike the appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, while tags can be helpful, it's also good to note what is wrong on the talk page explicitly instead of just adding the tags. And even if you do explain why you included the tags on the majority of articles you tag, I believe it's sufficient to note the problems the article has on the talk page, because that is what the talk page is for, instead of also adding the tags. You can put me in the group that "thinks articles should never be tagged" if you like, only because I dislike their generality, not necessarily because they look bad.--十八 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably an issues that should be brought up to the village pump or maybe ANI if it is getting out of hand. To me, it is a silly reason to get into an edit war, but that is exactly what is happening. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It did get heated thanks to one editor coming from the Dragon Ball merger dispute to make a lovely round of personal attacks, and continuing to remove the tags when others supported and readded them. For now, I've just gone ahead and done a quick and dirty editing of the article to at least get it back to a decent shell. It would be nice if some others from the project could help out in editing it. I know this film has a ton of sources and I can't imagine why it couldn't fairly easily and quickly be brought up from a start class article to a GA or possible FAC. It hasn't been hit by the Assess group yet, but I'd guess this is one of our High or Top importance articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assess it High, certainly -- a classic, iconic anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Miyazaki - and Satoshi Kon - films I checked were a mess, so I tagged them all as needing attention. These are all the biggest lights anime has, and it's sort of a shame they've been left in such a shabby state. I'd sort of assumed they'd all been made at least B long ago. Doceirias (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At least this one has gotten a nice boost from all the attention. I've taken it off my watchlist after the events on the talk page, but if someone from the project is planning to work on it, Anime Explosion mentions it on quite a few pages, including briefly discussing Westerner audiences mistaken tendency to ascribe impropriety to the scene where the father is bathing with the girls, a discussion of "Sampo" them and other music, how the film reflects a time in Miyazaki's own life when his mother was hospitalized for two years, and it has a two page review/examination in which Drazen notes that it is "arguably the finest children's movie ever made." I can scan any/all in if someone wants to use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be of interest to adding in the article: Totoro Forest Auction Earns an Estimated US$201,236. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Animated films task force

A joint task force on animated films has been proposed on WikiProject Films. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss and sign up. If there is enough support, the task force will be created. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects

I've never heard to the animanga project referred to as the "Anime and Manga Project" for the purpose of documentation, project, portal, category, or template names, etc., and this is reflected in the naming of our project categories for both templates and categories. Would there be any objections to renaming this one, along the same lines, to Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects? —Dinoguy1000 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Category:Anime and manga redirects after Category:Anime and manga templates. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, without the "WikiProject" in front. That didn't make sense at first, but then I thought about it. BTW, would there be any objections to implementing a "Redirect" class in our banner? it wouldn't require active tagging (especially after the very recent push to remove our banner from all redirect pages), but would be nice to have. —Dinoguy1000 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I would like that - it's convenient for when an article gets merged into another one. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I too would like that, although it did not gain much support in the past. Will we be adding the banner to the existing redirects, or not, and how we will find them? (Not all redirects are listed in the above category, e.g. Alternative spelling, Alternative capitalisation, With/without Macrons, etc. etc. We are likely looking at thousands of redirects.) G.A.S 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said when I suggested it above (and as I also said about implementing similar functionality for images), I'm not recommending active tagging if this is agreed upon and implemented, although if any one person feels up to the task of hunting down and tagging all those redirects (and images, since I'm considering restarting that particular discussion to hopefully establish a clear consensus on whether we want image tagging or not), they would certainly be welcome to, and - also as I said in the previous discussion - I would likely be doing a decent amount of tagging myself, although this might be a nice little side project for a bored AWB user as well (it's certainly the type of work AWB was meant for). —Dinoguy1000 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would actually oppose adding a redirect class to the template or tagging redirects. I really don't see a purpose in it other then acting as some form of billboard. --Farix (Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I recently added messages for Project and Portal pages and images (those are sample links BTW), and for |class=redirect, but keep in mind that these all still categorize into Category:Non-article anime and manga pages. —Dinoguy1000 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And just what is the point of tagging redirects, project pages and images? This doesn't seem like a good idea and is entirely pointless to me. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracking of contribs for merged content, for one, or just doing redirection maintenance. However, if it were me I would just use a category to the redirect itself, as done at Category:Redirects by WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that a number of our project pages and several images and portal pages have been tagged for more than a year (at least, for longer than I've been a member of the project). Having the functionality present doesn't imply a requirement to use it, it's merely there in case someone wants to make use of it, or decides to tag a page as such even without being aware of the functionality. There are no empty categories to be populated by this new functionality, so I hardly see why it would spur someone to tag on that basis. I previously stressed the fact that I wasn't expecting an active tagging effort in response to the addition of this functionality, and I'm continuing to stress it. —Dinoguy1000 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, I guess. There might be a case where it is beneficial to keep the banner on a talk page for a redirect (discussions regarding merges, for example), so might as well tag it as such. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar image

Found this image on Commons. Curious whether we should recognize this (IMO, the BarnSakura is better, but this isn't bad either). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aww, it's cute. And it's very different, so we could maybe come up with different scenarios for using each. --Masamage ♫ 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is cute. Maybe this is the BarnKawaiiko? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... on the one hand, the sakura looks more professional. But on the other hand... awwww, I want one! --erachima talk 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Masamage, deciding different scenarios for using both sounds like a good idea. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnsakura for article contributions, barnloli for project contributions? --erachima talk 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Barnloli...(^o^)...I like the idea of having one for each. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its cute and it would be nice to have some different barnstar options depending on the kind of work. I like erachima's suggestion of one for article work, one for project stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. So BarnSakura for article work, and BarnLoli for project work? (And FYI, this might encourage all of the above —including me— to clear all our backlogs for this thing :p) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think User:G.A.S should get the first one. --erachima talk 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Let's wait until his RfA ends though, so he gets the double drama of having the mass of thankspam on his page plus this awesome barnstar. ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Well deserved award. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Too late... I was worried someone would beat me to it. --erachima talk 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I probably would have spent too much time thinking of an adequate caption in any case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! And thank you very much! Now for the question: Is there a similar ribbon for it? (In the style of the other one?) ;) G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be a bit late in this conversation, but oh well... I definitely like the barnloli (LOL...), and IMHO, the BarnSakura (and cherry blossoms in general) speak to me more of Japan in general than anything specifically anime/manga related (Sakura Haruno aside, of course). That being said, I also like (but not quite as much) the idea of one for article work vs. one for project work, and am now mooning after one myself (but I suppose, if I keep working, I'll get one eventually ^^). (by the way, do all these parenthetical thoughts annoy anyone?) —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the BarnSakura was invented before Wikipe-tan was. (Only slightly.) --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I just presented TheFarix with a BarnLoli for all his hard work updating the transclusions of {{Infobox animanga}} back in June, something that he never got rewarded for (other than maybe a slap on the back and a "job well done"). —Dinoguy1000 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. While getting awards is not my purpose, I do appreciate when I do get them. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On another side note, Collectonian now has one as well, for general overall goodness and such with regard to WP:ANIME. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

On a slightly related note, I recall a discussion a while ago about updating the project banner to show a different Wikipe-tan image for every level of article quality (like we do now with GA/FA). With the assessment department, we've now established the differences between start, C, and B-class, so I think this is pretty viable. Any opposition to asking User:Kasuga for designs for each? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would very much support different images. I find that it is a bit odd that we have an image for GA class, but not A class, which is technically of higher quality. G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think A-class is utilized much by our project, so I don't think that's there is a specific need for it. In any case, I'll go ask Kasuga about this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:( I know. I would like to get A class up and running, I have already drafted the instructions on WP:ANIME/ASSESS (commented out), but unless more editors are involved in reviewing for A class, this will not really go anywhere fast. G.A.S 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, we actually had an A-Class article or two a long, long time ago, but it was before I ever got involved with the project (or anime/manga articles in general), and I have no idea what articles those might have been (the only way I even know is because I occasionally like to snoop around in page histories). As GAS said though, there just don't seem to be enough editors interested in A-Class for it to get started up - I guess, after getting an article to GA, most editors either lose interest and move on to other work, or are too focused on achieving FA to worry about A. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did at one point have two A-class articles. The exact definition of "A-class" has never really been clear though, and frankly I'd prefer that it either be merged, with the GA and FA classifications filling the spot, or else correspond with the featured/good topics classification for "peer reviewed" pages of limited purview. --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I'm also uninterested in taking advantage of A-class as a ranking, peferring to stick with GA and FA. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to erachima] I copied on of the larger Project's A class definitions, and tweaked it to be useful on our type of articles, (Wikipedia:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment guidelines), [Reply to Dinoguy] and but I believe WP1.0 currently require 2 or more uninvolved reviewers to agree that an article is A class (Hence I cannot do it alone). [Reply to all] As is the definition on WP:ANIME/ASSESS currently stands, this would be reserved for our top GA's, those which are just out of FA's reach. Maybe upgrading a few of them would give this idea a boost? G.A.S 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we rather go for something like this? G.A.S 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! All right! Let's do this! [/Joe Swanson] —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We have that sketch version of her that could be used for stub and/or start class. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How to identify the RS parts of Mania.com?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

News items should still generally have Chris Beveridge's name as the author, or otherwise be linked to from the main "AoD" entry page. For reviews, the RS/Official ones are still in a similar format as the originals, like this, should have the full reviewer name on it, and should be linked to from the anime/manga review list.

---

A while ago, AnimeonDVD.com which was considered a RS was bought by Mania.com - whilst working on Haru o Daiteita I came across many Mania.com reviews from the series, (temporarily housed in the External links section) but I'm unsure as to whether they come from the reliable portion of the site, or not. How does one go about telling this? -Malkinann (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

News items should still generally have Chris Beveridge's name as the author, or otherwise be linked to from the main "AoD" entry page. For reviews, the RS/Official ones are still in a similar format as the originals, like this, should have the full reviewer name on it, and should be linked to from the anime/manga review list. I think the user reviews are all in a separate area of the site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems that the reviews I've found are indeed the official ones. ^_^ -Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism warning from 118.137.x.x range

Word to anyone watching anime articles; keep an eye out for any anon users editing from the 118.137.x.x IP ranges. I've noticed an anon user in the last day or so has been adding incorrect information to various anime-related articles, implying that companies and series are owned and distributed by American companies like Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer when they're clearly not. So far, the address I've seen this vandalism happen on include:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The articles this user(s) hit can be seen in their contributions. If you see a user in this IP range who's adding that kind of information to anime articles, please revert and report. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 10:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Found another address he's doing it from: 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been handled and IP range blocked for three months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lupin edit war

Lupin III Part II has been getting some edits by an unregistered user. Nothing major, but it was reverted by another editor twice, and then made again. I've reverted it again partly because it's just inaccurate (both the replacement terms were never used on that series officially) and less detailed then the original. However the naming conventions for Lupin aren't exactly straightforward, so input is welcome. MoS dictates we use the english name for the series but then we get a clash with the original series (currently solved with a disambiguation). Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron needs to be split its become bloated

Looking at the Voltron article I have a few queries if that is ok?

1. Is it OK to split some of this article into smaller pieces particularly the character section and popular culture section as I feel its become unwieldy and hard to read.

2. According to the discussion section its rated a C grade article how? Because no reliable references are made about many aspects such as the comics, DVD Releases are not referenced is it OK to make a start article.

3. The third question I believe Voltron: The Third Dimension (TV Series) should be renamed Voltron: The Third Dimension as I feel I have provided enough basic evidence of the shows existance and notablity.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Its bloated because it has too much stuff in it that it doesn't need and it needs a major overhaul to give it a better structure. The entire "References in other media" should go, and the Comic book bios as well. Almost the entire thing is unsourced, which makes me suspect "Changes from the Japanese version" is pure OR. Clean, cull, and redo first, then look at splitting if, after its redone and in good shape, its still too long. I've also lowered the assessment to a C. It is missing to much of the basic sections of a good article while having too much "cruft' to even be C. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created a character section for Voltron List of Voltron characters and I have popular culture references section since there are no reliable sources to confirm them.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article is confusing, though, since I can't tell for sure if its saying Voltron is an anime that was then dubbed and edited, or that Voltron is a blend of two other anime series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are YouTube clips permissible to use as evidence I used the official World Events Productions clips channel to demonstrate my points as references.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dwanyewest: The Third Dimension's "existance and notablity" have nothing to do with the article's title (you said the same thing in Star Blazers deserves its own article). It is just a matter of requesting Voltron: The Third Dimension's deletion so the article can be moved there.--Nohansen (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't think YouTube links are considered reliable sources, but it depends on what you are sourcing (and if its clearly established that the clips are on an official channel). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that because youtube is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, we shouldn't link to it at all. -Malkinann (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says "there is no blanket ban on linking to [YouTube] as long as the links abide by the guidelines". If the clips are on an official channel, like Collectonian said, I think linking to them would be alright.--Nohansen (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the World Events official Channel [5]

These are the clips [6][7] make up your own minds if its legit

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that profile indicates or supports the claim that it is an official channel, so I agree they should not be used. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron.com, which bills itself as the official Voltron website, does not link back to the YouTube profile. -Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried contacting Voltron.com via webmaster@voltron.com and tried to confirm or deny whether this [8] is their official YouTube channel but have recieved no response if any one else wishes to try to contact them to find out is welcome to.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention that your correspondence has to be verifiable? (The easiest way for the Voltron.com webmaster to do it would be to link to the youtube channel and call it the official Voltron.com youtube channel on the Voltron.com website.) -Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I have greatly improved the Voltron article its by no means perfect but at least the information is cited from reliable sources. But if I can prove that World Events page is official can I use their videos to illustrate the different plot changes between Golion and Voltron.

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone is reading this part anymore but I believe that Voltron should be renamed Voltron:Defender of the Universe as it is official name listed by the company and the name it was broad casted under.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by the official Voltron website forum that World Events do have an official YouTube.

[9]

Dwanyewest (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

list of Robotech characters is confusing and unweildly

List of Robotech characters is in need of reform and links formatted because its hard to read as its unweidly and has no consitancy. I added character inboxes to the most notable characters and this is a list of characters I feel should be merged and split

• Sera (Robotech character) minor character
• Corg minor character
• Macross operators minor characters
• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

These are the articles I think should split to avoid confusion

• Roy Focker should be split to Roy Fokker
• Bruno J. Global should be split to Henry J. Gloval

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumbor Barutronica

Here's an odd duck found while working through the urgent attention backlog: An article about a series that lasted 10 chapters in Weekly Shōnen Jump before being cancelled. Sounds like an open-and-shut non-notable subject except there's an extensive ja.wiki article, possibly because it was Hiroyuki Takei's first project after completing Shaman King, and even ANN deigns to notice it. So I'm bringing it here for advice: give the {{notability}} tag a chance to scare up some evidence, or go straight to a proposal to merge to the author's article? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The author is certainly notable, and there is precedent for pages on one volume works by notable authors. Of course, those works have usually been translated...pretty borderline. If someone had gone to the trouble of translating the Japanese article, I'd say let it be, but since it is just a plot summary, it should probably be merged. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Right -- I'll tag it for merging and see if anyone objects. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request

I would know if anybody could make a little copyedit in Fullmetal Alchemist. The article has passed through a peer review and reassessment and seems it only lack copy edit before a GA nomination (more important the production section). Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on it a little bit. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of voice actors

Hi. I've come across a List of voice actors, but almost all of the people listed seem to be from the U.S. Was it decided somewhere that Japanese voice actors shouldn't be included there?--Cattus ^talk 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because seiyū is a different article and category from voice actors? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to understand is if the project thinks seiyu should also be listed on that list, or if the category is enough. The list, unlike the category, has notes for each person, mostly with the main roles they've had. It just seems weird that a list of voice actors would have only one (!) Japanese voice actor. If there is no objection, I'd like to add some more, at least the main ones... --Cattus ^talk 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Record of Lodoss War

The Record of Lodoss War article is in some serious need of help. Its an extremely confusing mess, unreferenced, with a ton of lists and a complete lack of some basic details. Anyone have time to tackle it? I'm trying to clean up the episode list as its at AfD, but can't make enough heads or tails of the main article to even get details from there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the JA version, it looks like ours is mostly a copy of that one with translation (or visa versa). Also the List of Record of Lodoss War episodes could use some decent summaries and the rest of the Japanese titles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the rest of the Japanese titles along with the relevant rōmaji. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Muhyo and Roji's Bureau of Supernatural Investigation

Erp. I saw a new user adding a story arcs section, and advised the creation of a chapters list instead. They created it - at Muhyo and Roji BSI List of Chapters, for some reason - without any formatting at all, and it was promptly tagged for speedy deletion. Anyone want to swoop in and try and get things on track? I'm really short of time today. Doceirias (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the title and will be working on fixing up the format over the next hour or so. Anyone want to tackle the main article? I did some quick MoS work and redid the lead some, but could use more help. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More barnstar images

• More barnstar images
• 
• 
• 
• 

Found more images on Commons. IMO, having too many barnstars is a bad thing, but the project should probably be aware of everything that is available. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can always leave this open to the editors' imaginations;) G.A.S 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the third would make a nice clean up task force barnstar :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that works. List the barnstar at WP:ANIME/CLEANUP. What's the name of the barnstar then? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BarnMeido? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would say we add it to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP as a reward, WP:ANIME is going to get quite crowded with awards otherwise. G.A.S 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja.wiki assist with Yasuhito Yamamoto

Can I get an assist here? From this edit, it looks like ja.wiki version of the article was merged into a longer list of ... mangaka that had been permastubs? Or ... what? Machine translation is getting me only so far. If anyone can figure out what happened, I'd appreciate it -- especially if it might affect what we do with our article. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nihonjoe should be able to translate this, but it seems to me that you are correct in assuming that the article was merged to a list without a proper edit summary. (Note, I use the following three engines [10][11][12]—did you use all of them?). The template at the top of the page also seems to ask that articles are split from the list once enough information is available to do so. G.A.S 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? To me, it seems the history of ja:山本康人 is all redirects: first to one of his works, then directly to his entry on the mangaka list. —tan³ tx 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So they've been creating a list of minor/underinformationed mangaka, in preference to stubs. Interesting. (I use Babelfish and Google -- hadn't known about Excite; thanks.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do that on JAWP. I had thought about doing it here, but wasn't sure the best way to do so. It would provide a place for lesser-known (or lesser-sourced) and new mangaka to be listed without having separate articles until the article was large enough to be on its own. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How would such a list fly with the notability, er, obsessed? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I haven't made such a list yet. I'm still musing over how something like that might work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make such a list in project space and then spin out individual articles as we can? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The list will allow those who want to procrastinate have some free time to quickly know which authors needs sources, info, etc. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I see is how to keep track of individual edits to the pages. One possibility is to make a subpage for each individual artist/author, and then substitute them into a main page. Then, if the section grows large enough, we can just move that subpage and remove the transclusion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the existing stubs could just as easily be transcluded from the main namespace...? The existing biography stubs are quite numerous[13] though, not to mention the voice actor stubs[14]. G.A.S 07:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the issue though: this list would have to be outside Mainspace so it wouldn't get deleted. Therefore, all the pages transcluded on it should be outside of Mainspace, too. On a tangentially-related note, it might be good to create a page which lists all the project-related stub pages with useful information like how many articles are linking to the page, etc. This would give an indication which stubs should be expanded first. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issue. The list should physically be outside the main namespace, but this does not mean that we should remove the existing stubs—there are no technical restrictions on transcluding pages—and this would keep the edit histories intact; as such I am puzzled why you say that all transcluded pages should be outside of the main namespace. However, for consistency, it would help if they too are transcluded. As for such a list... here is something like it (Warning: Very large page). G.A.S 08:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Comment) Wow... 305 manga artist stubs and 662 seiyu stubs... If such a list was created, it definitely needs to be separated into many subsections... -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And there are a few stubs in here that does not have the proper stub templates applied yet (as 995 of the articles in that category are rated as stub class[15]). G.A.S 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So getting back to my original question: should anything be done to Yasuhito Yamamoto now as a result of the ja.wiki merge? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We have quite a few articles that aren't on JAWP, or are larger to varying degrees than their JAWP counterparts. I don't see any reason to get rid of an article simply because JAWP does. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing date autoformatting

With the Japanese episode list template, the links are auto-formatted, and doesn't work properly if the linking is removed (currently, putting [[2006-10-05]] as a parameter will cause it to display 26 October 2006, but if the linking is removed, it just displays 2006-10-05). Can we edit the template so it doesn't do the linking, or does it need it to function? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It's a wiki thing, not to do with the template :P Can it be changed? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, you're supposed to actually put October 26, 2006 and not use the ISO dates. The ones using ISO dates have to be fixed before the links are removed. The links are being removed to remove the autoformatting, hence it not working :P-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this raises another issue I've been wondering about for awhile now... should we adopt a "standard" date format for anime/manga articles? WP:DATE allows for ignoring formatting precedent on a given article with strong national ties to a topic, though that says it's specifically for English-speaking countries, and thus I'm not sure how it would affect us. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic and its WP:DATE counterpart are specifically only for things in English, not things that come from a non-English-speaking country and are translated into English. We should follow WP:MOS#Retaining the existing variety as we always (should) have. —tan³ tx 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should. There is too much mixing going on and now that the auto formatting is gone, some of our articles are a mess. As the first English version is primarily NA and it is the date format most heavily used, I personally would go with the American dating. It just seems odd to have International (AKA UK) dating on some articles, such as InuYasha, which itself jumps back and forth between individual articles within the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm for consistant within an article/topic, but otherwise not for a enforcing a specific format (except, not ISO is strongly preferred). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, I hadn't thought about consistency between the articles of a given series before... but I think that would definitely be a good thing, possibly good enough to justify ignoring the guidelines. Anyone else have thoughts on this, as opposed to a project-wide standard? —Dinoguy1000 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic consistancy sounds good, but I don't think we should be "enforcing" it over the whole project, because that sort of thing is exactly why we have a section on it in the MOS in the first place. —tan³ tx 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As TangentCube says. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, topic consistency should, I think, be a must...as is never more clearly shown than by List of Dragon Ball episodes, where in the first two ep lists used American format, but the second two used British, so when transcluded into the one list...~goes off to make use of some RegExs to fix the second two lists~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a standardised format would make the pages look nicer. For all of the edits that I've done, it's been month before day, which I used because I've seen it most on the Anime pages. Thus, all that's required to remove the autoformatting is to remove the square brackets (and add a comma), so it's a bit simpler and is the one I prefer. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always liked the ISO format simply because it was small, and gave more room to other columns in the table, but I'm open to other options. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the ISO date in tables since it is sortable, in addition to the space saved. G.A.S^talk 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I use ISO a lot for work and in reports I generate because of that reason. The problem with ISO on Wikipedia, though, is it can be more confusing for readers because we have a much wider audience. To some countries, its yyyy-mm-dd but in others its yyyy-dd-mm, resulting in potential confusion as to what the date really is. For example, 2008-04-05 would be April 5, 2008 to some folks, but in some other English speaking countries, it would mean May 4, 2008. Spelling it out as April 5, 2008 or 5 April 2008 removes that issue and ensures clarity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: Per definition, ISO standard is YYYY-MM-DD. It is the other numerical format that is confusing, ie DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY. (See Calendar date#Usage issues) G.A.S^talk 06:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean confusing to readers. Readers don't always know that ISO = YYYY-MM-DD, and in other countries, it can mean YYYY-DD-MM instead. Spelling it out and using the full month name removes that issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As Collectonian says -- ISO has its virtues, but clarity to the general reader isn't one of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Spelling it out removes confusion. ~ Itzjustdrama? 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, but not being American I would. For wikipedia use only spelling it out is clear enough to everyone. It's confusing enough when the rest of the internet assumes you know what format their date useage is in, but you can usually make some sort of assumption based on the site (i.e. the big anime and game sites tend to be american unless they have obvious overtones towards other regions). You simply can't do that on wikipedia. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have to ask, though, should we agree on a preferred date format for new articles for series that previously had no dedicated articles (its usage wouldn't be required if there ws a good reason to use a different format)? And should we update our MoS with these guidelines and (perhaps) notify WP:DATE just to make sure it's all right with everyone over there? —Dinoguy1000 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, to have some consistency. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Related issue: delinkers changing formats

As noted above, so far we seem to agree that while the project shouldn't push one format over another, that topic consistency should be enforced and that, in general, which ever date format (international or american) that was used first should be retained, correct? Unfortunately, at least one of the editors going around and delinking using the scripting tools, Ohconfucius has hit a large number of our episode lists and he did not pay any attention to the existing date formats. Instead, he delinked them all to International format which, of course, now has all of those lists in conflict with the rest of their articles and with the date MoS itself regarding retaining existing date formats if the article doesn't have a strong tie to one or another. I've been going through and undoing and redoing them properly, but some help would be appreciated. I've also left him a note asking him to take more care in the future. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As a note, it looks like he only did this for titles O-S, with the earlier ones fine. He was trying to be consistent with the newer ones, but he seemed cool with my explanations on the format. So they should all be cleaned up now. Yay! Might be good to double check any others if you see them hitting a list, though. I know Tony has been sticking with the article's existing format, as have I on the lists I've hit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually started at the top of the alphabet (start here and work your way down). I started hand-reverting these but got distracted with other fixes as well, finally burning out shortly after Gin Tama. —tan³ tx 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going backwards through his contribs. When I hit O, it looked like the rest were all done okay, but will check back some more. It is tiring even using the script again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually noticed this a few days ago, but I was too lazy to really do anything about it (surprise surprise). I was spurred to install Lightmouse's script for myself, though, but haven't gotten a chance to try it yet. —Dinoguy1000 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I installed it the other day and its pretty easy once you realize the links are added to the left menu not the top :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a chance to try it on a few articles, and it's really nifty - my only qualm with it so far is that it doesn't seem to be able to convert ISO dates to other formats (unless I'm missing something, since I couldn't find any documentation...). —Dinoguy1000 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a complaint for me too. I wonder if he could possibly add that function. The idea of changing all of the InuYasha episode lists manually makes me want to call in sick for the day :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Makoto Kobayashi (artist)

Makoto Kobayashi (physicist) is now a Nobel laureate. And Makoto Kobayashi redirects to the physicist page (some one made that change and it's OK for me). So I have changed some of the links to Makoto Kobayashi with Makoto Kobayashi (artist) because after the redirect the links weren't right. May be it's better that you check my changes and make others if needed. Thank you.

• Pages that link Makoto Kobayashi
• Pages that link Makoto Kobayashi(aritst) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthedragon (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's why the change -- I was wondering. Thanks for doing the work. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref check

Anyone own 500 Manga Heroes or The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tien Shinhan, and editor has claimed that those two books contain significant coverage about the DB character Tien Shinhan (on page 335 for the first, no page given on the second). However, he also claimed there was extensive coverage in Anime Explosion, which I owned, checked, and found not so much as a mention of his name. Looking to see if the other two claims are valid or not as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be too late, but I've ordered them for future reference. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I may check the Encyclopedia out of my uni's library. Won't be much use for newer series since it was published in '97, but curious to see if it has anything useful for the older ones. Wish some of these authors would release some newer books so we can get some coverage of the series from the 2000s :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I own it. I'll have a look tonight. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Metal Panic! Pages

After randomly browsing anime pages, I found there are quite a few separate FMP related articles that most likely should be merged. I'm not suggesting all of these be merged, just maybe we should have a bit of a look at them:

• Arm Slave
• Whispered
• Mithril (Full Metal Panic!)
• ARX-8 Laevatein
• Black Technology
• Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu!
• Full Metal Panic! The Second Raid

-- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Without comparing to other articles and looking for examples (I'm getting insane amounts of script errors from wikipedia...) or reading up on guidelines, I'd like to see Fumoffu and TSR retain their independance and improved where possible. TSR seems a fairly well developed article at first glance, and I think it deserves it's own article. ARX-8 could probably be merged into Arm Slave, I'm not convinced a single Arm Slave warrants it's own page (if it did why not a page for the Arbalest?). Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is one for the ARX-7 Arbalest, which I believe deserve to be kept (from looking at some of the Gundam related articles, and probable notability). I did not list all of the related articles, as some (to my belief) deserves its own article (such as the List of Full Metal Panic! characters, List of Full Metal Panic! media, main character pages, etc) and so were not listed. The reason I'm listing these particular ones is because these would probably be better off merged into one article. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise a Arbalest page existed. However, I still think ARX-8 should be merged, if only due to the lower notability (not officially translated, no anime adaptation yet or for the forseeable future - likely not until the novels finish). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal individual characters merges

I have tagged three characters to merge them in List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters. Discussion started in here. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

More Dragon Ball character list drama

Despite the AfD closing as merge, and that AfD being upheld in a rapid fire DRV, JJJ999 is continuing to beat the proverbial dead horse and has now started a discussion to unmerge Cell (Dragon Ball) from the list. He basically discounts the overwhelming consensus from the AfD, and I personally think this is getting into the disruptive whelm. In either case, the discussion is Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Unmerge Cell. Please feel free to come by and offer your views. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have closed that discussion as disruptive and a waste of time. There's no reason to keep rehashing the exact same discussion over and over again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin

Aside from Sagara Sanosuke failing GA, I've also noticed that although we have pages for Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal and Samurai X: Reflection we don't have a page for Samurai X: The Motion Picture. Now, I'm still not clear on how this works for project policy (see the Full Metal Panic item above) but if separate pages are welcomed, do we need a page for the movie too? The Ova's are set before, and after the rest of the franchise, whereas the movie is a "side story" if it makes a difference. Of course, the western release of these are all named differently from the tv series, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference?

I'm going to be doing some work on various Kenshin pages that are currently start and theres a lot of stuff that needs doing, so any work on any of the pages would be appreciated! The lead of Rurouni Kenshin still needs checking, it's the obvious thing standing in the way of a GA nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The OVAs were decided not to be merged since users saw it could have too much reception available. The movie article was merged since it was very short and did not have any ref. I think a few characters could be merged but I still want to work in Sanosuke since the reviewer did not put on hold it although he said it did not need so many fixes.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I'm leaving Sanosuke as I don't think I'm the right person to make the improvements. I did have a brief discussion with Collectonian regarding some of the other characters. I couldn't see any discussion regarding merges, just the suggested merge tag, and only in the talk pages not on the article. Seta Sōjirō, Yukishiro Enishi and Yukishiro Tomoe all strike me as characters deserving off their own pages (not so much Sojiro) with regards to notability, they just need improving. I haven't started a discussion regarding the proposed merges due to the lack of notes regarding reasons for the suggestion and wanting to leave Enishi and Tomoe until I finish the manga (currently most of the way through the flashback).

List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters could do with a reassesment. It's currently start but doesn't seem that different to List of Naruto manga volumes which is FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It still need summaries and the Naruto volumes have the summaries in its respective sublist.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea. Add volume summaries for volume eight on and then I would suggest the reassessment request afterward. Delink the dates too. ~ Itzjustdrama? 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm blind then :p Collectonian has just bumped it to C, i'll try and sort the summary's out soon. Currently working on the episode list (drafting seperate season lists to bring the current large list into line with other articles Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm not having much luck with summaries, it's harder then it sounds. I can;t even write one for the volume that is only flashback (vol20) aside from one "intermission" chapter. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about getting it done today. If it's too difficult, you can get back to it. I guess I can lend a little help. But I haven't actually read the series so I have to do that. I guess looking at featured lists helps narrows down what the volume summary should contain. ~ Itzjustdrama? 02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have a habit of not getting things done if i don't do them right away. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate season lists created List of Rurouni Kenshin Season 1 episodes,List of Rurouni Kenshin Season 2 episodes,List of Rurouni Kenshin Season 3 episodes. The leads all need doing, references are needed and japanese titles and airdates are incomplete but it's a start. I've also removed the episode summarys from the main list List of Rurouni Kenshin episodes which has the same problems Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I ll try to expand the lead.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm now fixing all of the mistakes there. In the future, please discuss and ask for help before doing such edits if you aren't sure how to do it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has fixed my cockups, written some leads and we've both added the all the missing kanji and airdates. Most of the romaji titles still need doing if anyone can find them Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Xam'd: Lost Memories

Okay, so I've came across this series quite a few months ago, and now I've decided to work on it a little bit, however there are something that begins to concern me. As the article implies, the anime is available exclusively on the PlayStation Network, which leads me to wonder if the infobox should be using {{Infobox animanga/OVA}} with the ONA field set as yes, instead of the one for the anime, since as it appears the Japanese version of the article is refering it as a Web anime, which itself links back to Original net animation here in the English version. I also wonder if the list of episodes would belong in Category:Lists of anime television series episodes, as apprently the category is for anime television series, but leaving the page uncategorized would seem a little bit :\. -- クラウド６６８ 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Legend of the Galactic Heroes episodes is also in that category, so I guess it's allright to put that series also in there. --Mika1h (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that category be named as "Lists of anime series episodes", as there no categories for OVA and webseries episodes. --Mika1h (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the category should be renamed too, since by wording, OVAs and web anime isn't getting the love it should be getting compared to TV series.-- クラウド６６８ 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But this is a TV series; it got a three month advance over the PSN, but it is airing on TV now, like it was always meant to. Doceirias (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kiuyasha Movie Shinsha Animation

Can someone have a look at Kiuyasha Movie Shinsha Animation to see if it's actually needed? An anonymous editor created it in the Talk: space, I have moved it into mainspace, but knowing next to nothing on the subject, I'm not sure if they're a notable studio or if we have the info elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

I fixed a couple of wikilinks, but I can't actually find mention of this company with google at all. Well, I found two links and one of them was the speedy deletion page (the google summary was out of date). If I can't find anything else out, I'll nominate it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No joy, nominated for deletion Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab cases

MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Anime and manga could adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Tien Shinhan and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-08 Cell (Dragon Ball). Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've picked up both of them as they are related. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Robotech template be deleted

I created the template below should stay or be deleted because I feel that the Robotech character section needs a major overhaul which I have mentioned before.

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to keep it as it allows for easy navigation within the topic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the characters I left off the template I think need to merged to list what does anyone else think? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to list characters who are on a list in the template, too. Just have the link do directly to the location on the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before but here I go AGAIN.

List of Robotech characters is in need of reform and links formatted because its hard to read as its unwieldy and has no consistency. I added character inboxes to the most notable characters and this is a list of characters I feel should be merged and split

• Sera (Robotech character) minor character
• Corg minor character
• Macross operators minor characters
• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

These are the articles I think should split to avoid confusion

• Roy Focker should be split to Roy Fokker
• Bruno J. Global should be split to Henry J. Gloval

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend discussing it over at Talk:List of Robotech characters and just leaving a link here. That way people who are watching that article, but not this one, will know about this discussion. Also, I formatted this discussion because it was getting frustrating trying to read it due to lack of indents. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Tong Li (pirating company)

I've just so happened to notice that Tong Li Comics is in several infoboxes on the Anime and Manga WikiProject. Tong Li is a bootlegging company, and i'm not too sure if it should be on there... : ( — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For those titles they "released" as pirated materials, I'd say they should be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I erased Tong Li off of Oh My Goddess!, although on the "WhatLinksHere", it says it's still on the page. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec' the page says that he stopped pirating. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes a moment for the WhatLinksHere to update as its cached (like search results). The Wikipedia article notes that he stopped pirating, however not that the company is now legitimately licensing manga titles, only that they started releasing original materials. I think we'd need some reliable sources showing that they held any legitimate licenses for claimed manga titles (particularly older ones like OMG). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just start removing them, I don't trust the company one bit. Also they bootlegged Weekly Jump, I'll never forgive em'! (kidding) I just think we should remove the links. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good God, Stop! Ever since the early nineties when the copyright laws went in place in Taiwan, Tong Li has been acquiring the licenses from Japan through legal means. The article should be edited to reflect this. Shame on you to be basing your actions through information from a Wikipedia article! _dk (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was also based on the source used in the article. Please provide valid sources showing that they do now actually legally license manga (which as I noted above, is needed anyway to claim someone has licensed a series, be it Tong Li, Viz, or anyone else). Which really points to a much bigger issue with almost all of our articles...people are frequently allowed to indiscriminately add networks, publishers, etc without any sources at all. All such additions should be sourced somewhere in the article or in the infobox if its valid, otherwise, I think we really need to stop just letting them in if its looks legit enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

key article in need of expert and cleanup

The character design se tion of the animae is in need of an expert. the following section is also disputed as POVed.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)