Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

"Adhering to naming conventions"

I'm working on changing the Dragon Ball "guidelines" to no longer advocate using the manga and/or English subtitles for the Japanese dub, and to switch to the English dub names. It may not be PREFERRED to use these, but naming conventions encourages the use of them nonetheless - namely, it suggests to use the "most common English name", which would be the anime names (based on common sense - the anime is marketed more than the manga, and is the basis for most merchandise based on the series), and the guideline recommending the usage of the names that would least surprise the reader (that is, the name that the reader would most expect to be used should be used). Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be an inappropriate change to the guidelines as they would conflict with the Anime and manga guidelines and could cause a lot of conflict with the editors. The manga is the primary work, so its names and content should be focused on first, with the anime differences noted as needed. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Clarification Needed?, in particular the subsection "Another concern", for current discussions on modifying our MoS to better clarify this and some remarks speaking to the need to emphasis the primary work, especially when both are licensed. Also see #Naming conventions (Using English?) above.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the manga is the primary work, but that does not mean that using the names from the manga is most helpful to those reading the articles. Anime and manga's MOS conflicts directly with that of Wikipedia's, and thusly, cannot be applied to anything. If the manga were dreadfully unpopular in English territories, you would certainly have a hard time establishing cause to use it over the anime. And the fact of the matter is that there are no English territories where the manga is more popular or well-known than the anime, so it being the primary format for the series doesn't change the fact that most people who know the series know it because of the anime. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the MoS does not. They are completely in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and all relevant MoS. You have shown no evidence that the anime is somehow insanely more popular than the manga, nor does the entire choice come down to a popularity contest. The manga is the primary work, it is what should be used for all articles. They are of equal value, with the manga being slightly above based on it being the first work and without which there would be no anime at all. Also, note that Viz calls both the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z manga as two of its most popular titles, right up there with Rurouni Kenshin. It was among the top manga sales in its earlier years, only toppled by Naruto relatively recently. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with A Link to the Past in that, yes, the MoS (sometimes) conflicts with Wikipedia's conventions, guidelines and others aspects of WP:STYLE. TheFarix pointed out one conflict ("I actually think that position conflicts with WP:USEENGLISH") in Naming conventions (Using English?), and I pointed out another in WT:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. But, honestly, I don't see how this relates to Dragon Ball because, as far as I know, the characters are named the same. I thought the only difference was in romanization ("Krillin" vs. "Kuririn").--Nohansen (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that people insist on the less common romanization because of the manga, which is not in the best interests of the reader. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You got a point there. After all, WP:MOS-JP says "names should be romanized according to common usage", and Kuririn's article says "Krillin" is used in most English adaptations (a little evidence for this claim would be nice). To paraphrase Collectonian, "a large portion of [anime/manga fans] are first exposed to series on Cartoon Network, or just picking up a book in the library or buying. There are a good chunk of fans that won't even watch series subtitled, much less would have a clue about its origins. Some even like the 4Kids editing. All of that should be taken into consideration" when decided "the version best known and that has contributed most to the [anime/manga]'s becoming known in the English-speaking world".--Nohansen (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, this appears to be an extension of an on-going argument occurring at Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Why Can't We Use English Names? regarding the use of Son Goku over Goku. Disclosure about why you are posing the question is a good thing.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what we're supposed to do, we're supposed to cater to the most popular names. Guidelines say this constantly. And let me add that there is very, very little opportunity for those not into Dragon Ball to understand the manga well. The anime was advertised heavily on television, had several DVD releases, most if not all merchandise based on the series in the US is based on the anime, and there's no way for someone to really be exposed to the manga without attempting to expose themselves to it, while all the person has to do to see the anime is have cable and be on the channel when it's on. It's a lot simpler, and the fact of the matter is that the anime was exposed to people watching Cartoon Network, those who are fans and those who are not, while the manga cannot "expose" itself to anyone, they have to have an interest in it. And the one most important question is "does focusing on the manga's naming conventions help the average reader looking to learn about the series?" And the next more important question? "Would the average reader know the character as Goku or Son Goku most?" The average reader does not read the manga, the average reader does not own the DVDs. And your comment about the manga taking precedence because it's the primary medium for the series, that's not backed up by any policy or guideline on Wikipedia - that is, at the very least, any guideline that supports that argument is one-upped by "Naming conventions (use English)", saying to use the most common English name. And on top of all this, if we had used the FUNi dub, the vast majority of Dragon Ball fans who know the direct translation names know the FUNi dub names. It doesn't hurt them to use those names for the title (which is not exactly relevant, since they don't need to be catered to) - there is no confusion in using these names at all, and they don't need these articles. However, according to naming conventions, using a name that would "surprise" a reader to see the article under that title is discouraged. Goku would be known by basically every single person who's ever heard of the character. If they know him as Goku or Son Goku, Goku is commonly affiliated with the character. Since naming conventions says to use the title the reader would find least surprising (Goku), and since using Goku would be of no harm to fans of Dragon Ball, it should be used. Knowing who Kururin is means you almost definitely know who Krillin is, but knowing who Krillin is does not mean you know who Kururin is. So in your way, people who don't need to read the article are helped while those who do need the article are not. In my way, the people who need to read the article are helped, and the people who don't just stay the way they are - in their continuous state of not being helped or hurt. The only thing that using the manga names serves to accomplish is to fulfill peoples' personal preference. Do you dispute this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And the reason I posted it here is for the reason that it should be posted here. I dealt with DB naming conventions, Sailor Moon naming conventions, European naming disputes, Japanese game naming disputes, etc. It is not "an extension of this argument". I plan on altering the conventions of all anime and any other project that may support Japanese preference or preference to names that would not follow the naming conventions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still disagree. I'll let others weigh in and try to convince you as well. I would, however, strongly caution you against saying you will "alter" the conventions without noting you will only do so with consensus. Doing so just because you (and so far only you) think it is wrong will result in very quick reverting. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Collectonian on all points. In actuality, there have been three significant discussions on moving "Son Goku". Here are the links: #Move to Goku., #Move, and #Requested move per WP:MOS-JP#Names & WP:GOOGLE. The names and configurations will pretty much remain where they stand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change - that is an official Wikipedia guideline. At no point can discussion be discouraged because it's been discussed before. Throughout the entire discussions, the only arguments cited in favor of the manga were based on using a less common romanization. The articles admit that Krillin is more common. Wikipedia guidelines state that the most common name should be used. What's the problem? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but not in this case as long as I live and breath. His name is Son Goku, and there is absolutely not reason to remove one of the names. Most people and characters are not referred to by their full name, yet I have never seen anyone else propose discarding part of the full name on the grounds that it isn't used as much. You might have an argument on the different spellings between anime and manga, but this Son Goku -> Goku argument is laughably absurd. Doceirias (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the "Bill Clinton" argument. The man's actual, full name is William Jefferson Clinton; but the article is named "Bill Clinton" because that's the name he is best known by. Another example would be H. P. Lovecraft.--Nohansen (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not arguing changing it to Bill Clinton, he's arguing changing it to Clinton. Doceirias (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to take it so literal (if anything, he's arguing changing it to "Bill"). The point is still the same, there appears nothing wrong with "discarding part of the full name on the grounds that it isn't used as much". Another examples are Alfred Hitchcock and Uncle Ben. At any rate, I'm more concerned with the romanization of Kuririn, Yamucha and I-don't-know how many more characters.--Nohansen (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a light year's difference between shortening one of the names to a nickname and removing one entirely, on the hilariously flimsy grounds that it isn't used as much. And "Clinton" would be the commonly used name in that case; first and last was irrelevant. Doceirias (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You lost me; I have no idea what you're getting at. But here's another example: May Reilly Parker, commonly known as Aunt May. It seems this is the way it's supposed to work: articles on people and fictional characters are named after that person's or fictional character's most common (or recognized) name. It's Clark Kent, not "Clark Joseph Kent". Nisio Isin instead of "Ishin Nishio". Steven Spielberg instead of Steven Allan Spielberg. Gardner Fox instead of "Gardner Francis Fox". It's not me, it's the "community" that's saying it.--Nohansen (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Steven Spielberg, not Spielberg. I don't think calling a character by a first name most of the time makes a name change worth doing. Plenty of characters have a first or a last name that is never really mentioned, but the character pages remain at the full name. Uncle Ben and Aunt May are certainly cases where an exception has been made, but I don't think this situation qualifies for that exception. Doceirias (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are Aunt May and Uncle Ben exceptions? The most common name is not the full name. Do you have a guideline that advocates using the full name even if it is not the most common name for the character? A large majority of people know the character as Goku. And if you asked everyone who's seen the anime and/or manga who Goku is, they would know. If you ask them who Son Goku is, most would be confused. Wikipedia guidelines tell us to use the name the majority of people would best recognize, and Son Goku does not qualify. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why those are exceptions, having not been party to the naming discussions. I think the difference here is that all versions of Spiderman refer to them as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, with very few exceptions. Only one version of Dragonball refers to Son Goku without his last name. It might be the most common version, but it is not the only common version, and there is not reason to give it preference when the full version is equally correct. "Goku" is still there as part of "Son Goku"; it does not become less correct to have the full name. Eliminating the last name, however, does add a bias towards the English dub which I do not feel is justified. By all means, Goku should be, and I assume is, a redirect. But the page name should not be made less accurate because one version of several common versions chose to simplify things. Doceirias (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Being biased towards the English dub is EXACTLY why Goku is best. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be as biased as humanly possibly towards English content. The literally one and only reason people choose to use the manga's names is that they are direct translations of the Japanese names, so in essence, the DB taskforce cares about giving bias to the Japanese dub. Will you stop stonewalling and pretend that guidelines matter for anything? Here's all the things taken from guidelines that support using Goku over Son Goku:

• "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." (you yourself stated that the most common name used for the character is Goku and not Son Goku)
• "Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." (the most common name, which you admit is Goku, is also the least surprising name, meaning this statement could be easily changed to "use Goku")
• "An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese; that is, use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jujutsu, and shogi, instead of Fuji-san, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, and shōgi." (from WP:MoSJP - Kururin is certainly not the most common form of the character's name. And in the case of Androids 17 and 18, calling them Artificial Human 17 and 18 goes against this - Android 17 and 18 may not be a proper translation of the Japanese names, but they are indeed the most common names for the characters)

As we can plainly see, the arguments in favor of Goku over Son Goku are staggeringly apparent. These guidelines do not suggest that the existence of other common mediums for the series cancels this out. All that matters is that the most common iteration of the name should be used. And looking at the mediums, we can count - manga, anime, English subtitles (only because WP:DB will advocate it being counted), and video games. The manga and English subtitles use the direct translations of the characters' names, but they are far less common than the anime. English subtitles are contained on a DVD containing the English dub, and being a secondary feature, it would be less commonly viewed than the English dub, much less so. And as can be observed, the video games, along with the TCG, action figures, and most if not all other material based on the series is based specifically on the anime, not the manga.

The biggest problem is not with my argument, but with yours - you attempt to attack our evidence at some points, but fail to respond to the attacks over your LACK of evidence. For instance, you constantly suggest a need for the use of Goku's full name, but never provide any Wikipedia guideline that suggests that full names are encouraged. And to bring up your claim that Uncle Ben and Aunt May are exceptions, why isn't Goku? The one reason Uncle Ben and Aunt May are at where they're at is simply this - these names are the most common for the characters. Similarly, Son Goku is NOT the most common name. Using Son Goku goes against two separate guidelines - and Heck, one of the guidelines is about Japanese content, making it directly related (and I can't believe how much a guideline that didn't support the argument in all the past discussions was cited so much). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I hit a nerve here. The manga names are EQUALLY English. The current version allows us to satisfy both popular names. Anything else is irrelevant. Son Goku is his full name. There is no reason on earth we should present a less accurate name just because the version you like better choses to do so. You can Wikilawyer all you like, but your fundamental position doesn't make any sense. Doceirias (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, just curious, why do you keep acting as if being his full name is relevant to Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not belong to you, and enforcing multiple guidelines that are being blatantly violated by most if not every single anime project or taskforce. Why is the article the exception to multiple quality guidelines? And I look at your argument of "his name is Steven Spielberg, not Spielberg" - do you somehow find that a good argument? Are we asking to have first names be removed? No. Are we asking to have the common name used? Yes. Spielberg is undoubtedly not the name people commonly know him as, and Son Goku is not the name most people know him as. So why does the latter get used, but not the former? And no, Son Goku DOES NOT SATISFY GUIDELINES. You refuse to provide literally any reason why this is an exception. Son Goku is not the most common name for the character, and yet it's used. You constantly pretend that any Wikipedia guideline exists that suggests that being the most accurate name is more important than being the most common name. If we're speaking of most accurate, William Jefferson Clinton IS the most accurate name. Why isn't it used? Because it's not the most common name. It's not the name people identify him with. Bill Clinton is what the majority of the population call him. Son Goku is the most accurate name, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, it is NOT the better name. Multiple guidelines assert that the most common name is the best for the reader, so in their current state, these article can not achieve GA or FA status, as they flagrantly ignore quality guidelines. If you do not present a guideline that encourages the usage of the most accurate name in spite of it being less common than another name for the person, place, or thing, I WILL report this project for violation of WP:OWN - you do not have the right to ignore multiple established guidelines for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I find it especially bothersome that WP:JAPAN is often used by multiple anime-related projects, and yet is arbitrarily ignored when the contents work against it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. If he was much more well-known as Spielberg, he wouldn't be called the for disambig purposes. But he's not. Seeing Tupac called Tupac Shakur is not a stretch because he is known by many who are not fans of the rapper in his full name. And even if these articles are contradictory to guidelines, that does not allow for other articles to be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening to report the project because I am voicing my opinion vigorously? Without, I might add, getting insulting? I am doing my level best to explain my opinions here, and your reactions are getting increasingly overwrought. If you seriously can't understand why I think there is a difference between shortening William to Bill and removing one of a character's name completely, then there's really not much more point in my trying to explain myself. The arguments you keep siting simply do not apply here. There's no regulation I can site because the regulations you are citing do not support your argument. The character's name is Son Goku, will always be Son Goku, and will not stop being Son Goku not matter how many times you attempt to wave that away in a puff of Wikilawyering. I don't believe the majority of experienced editors would agree with you, as, indeed, they have repeatedly failed to do every time you've raised the issue. Doceirias (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. No, I believe it is because you refuse to fight with actual evidence, choosing to use a mass of people with one opinion to fight against it - not because it goes against Wikipedia quality guidelines, but because of their personal preference. You are pretty much declaring ownership of the articles by stating that they will always be at this title. I've more than established that the title does not follow with Wikipedia guidelines, and yet you say it will always do so? If you can't provide any reason supported by any guideline why this would be so, I cannot help but read your statement as "we will not allow it to change our article". Care to explain why it will always be at Son Goku, without mentioning the opposition to moving (because opposition to moving which lacks any guidelines supporting such opposition is not noteworthy).
2. And no, you are not. You are doing what is done in all discussions of following the guideline - stonewalling. You do not present any evidence, and make every attempt to deny any evidence that is provided to hurt your case.
3. And there is no difference. Bill Clinton is where it is at because of the common name guideline. The difference in name is completely irrelevant. You constantly ignore me when I ask you to provide a guideline suggesting using only one part of a person's name is against Wikipedia quality guidelines.
4. How so? I do not understand why this article is exempt from Wikipedia quality guidelines. The naming conventions exist to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I believe improving the quality of this article is very, very important. Logically, since it was decided on multiple guidelines that the most common English name should be used, it certainly does apply. Unless you can provide an actual reason why this is not so. The regulations say "use the common name". My argument is to use Goku, which you've already admitted is the common name. I would say that the regulations do nothing if not support my argument.
5. And, just curious, in any of those discussions, how many guidelines were cited? I can think of one for your side - WP:MoSJP. It was commonly cited in defense of Goku. And would you look at that? When it's revealed that the guideline actually damages the case for Son Goku, it is not relevant. Convenient of you, isn't it?
6. It's not my problem that the editors do not agree with me. I'm not trying to change their minds, I'm trying to make them follow real guidelines, not made-up guidelines to suit their personal preferences. Editors followed WP:MoSJP until it wasn't advantageous. You continuously insist that the article will not move, and clearly, that's a statement of ownership. Why will it not move? Will it not move because of a lack of reasoning? It's clearly not that, because I have two guidelines that specifically state that the most common English name should be used, and you have agreed that Goku is more common. It's not that this article is an exception to the guideline, because the article on Japan-related subjects covers ALL Japan-related subjects, including Goku. Unless you're prepared to explain your statement as to why the move will never happen, this is a flagrant violation of WP:OWN - declaring that the article belongs to you and/or the project.
7. And may I ask one thing - according to Wikipedia guidelines, does using the name Son Goku help the top priority readers? That is, those who have little to no knowledge of the series. And if so, why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're one coming in, attacking the project, being extremely rude and insulting, and basically saying you don't care at all about consensus, because you alone are right and your singular opinion is somehow more valid than the multiple editors saying otherwise. The problem isn't one editor displaying ownership, its your attitude and lack of respect for you fellow editors. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I forgot - disagreeing with the project is disrespectful. I don't care about the consensus against Goku because it has always been a farce. Are you honestly implying that people fought for Son Goku because there were legitimate guidelines defending their position? The only guideline, besides anime/DB guidelines that I've seen cited has been WP:JAPAN (which is conveniently not relevant anymore). And it's not my opinion, it's my fact. The guidelines CLEARLY apply. No one's actually countered them in ANY way, explained why there's an exception in this case that makes the guidelines not apply. The guidelines say that the article title should be the most common name for the character, and Son Goku is clearly not "the most common name for the character". I've cited three different quotations from two guidelines that say that exact thing - "use the most common English name", "use the name that would be least surprising to the reader", and from MoSJP, basically the same as the first one. There may be a consensus against it, but it is NOT the result of people legitimately establishing reason to make this article the exception to the guidelines (one of which that they commonly cite whenever it says what they like). - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Son Goku may be his full name, but Goku is his common name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur is utilized over his common name "Tupac" (or "2Pac"). Same scenario no? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tupac's article says "also known by his stage names 2Pac and Makaveli"; that's a slightly different scenario from Son Goku, "addressed only as Goku in most English adaptations". Where "2Pac" is an aka (not the most common or recognized stage name), "Goku" (according to his article) is the character's most common (or recognized) name. That's why I said earlier that "a little evidence for this claim would be nice". If there's proof that "Krillin" is a more recognized romanization than "Kuririn", that "Yamcha" is a more common variation than "Yamucha", then that's a strong argument for renaming the article(s). Like Collectonian said, we have to take into account the fact that "a large portion of [animanga fans] are first exposed to series on Cartoon Network, or just picking up a book in the library or buying. There are a good chunk of fans that won't even watch series subtitled, much less would have a clue about its origins. Some even like the 4Kids editing." If, ultimately, "Krillin" (and others) are the names that have "contributed most to the [characters] becoming known in the English-speaking world", what argument (other than stonewalling with the fact they're the ones used in the English translation of the manga) is there to preserve the names as they are?--Nohansen (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(random indent) If you're strictly following the English manga's naming practices, why is "Yamucha" being used? The manga and every other piece of Dragon Ball merchandising uses "Yamcha". Similar usage of "Artificial Human" and "Mr. Satan" produces the same inconsistencies. ~SnapperTo 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WPDB is also basing their page titles on names used in the Japanese-audio English subtitled portion of the Dragon Ball DVDs. Yamucha and Majin Boo are such examples. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits); 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So then why is the "manga knows best" defense being used? Subtitles would be the anime, not the manga. Ignoring that, subtitles are an incredibly obscure reference point to be using. ~SnapperTo 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been wondering about this for a while when looking at the DB pages. Whatever English media we have that is the most prominent trumps all other forms of naming, period. It's why Bleach shinigami are now "Soul Reapers" for instance. If the dub is the most prominent form of the DB series (which I'm pretty sure it is. I remember watching it way back when and not even knowing that the manga existed), then whatever naming choices it uses are the ones that should be present. The examples that Snapper provided should be "Artificial Human" --> "Android" and "Mr. Satan" --> "Hercule". Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to Sephiroth's line of thinking, the "the English manga does it that way" argument was used to justify having Naruto character names in Eastern order as opposed to Western order (e.g., Uzumaki Naruto instead of Naruto Uzumaki), but that argument was eventually discounted. Like with Naruto, most of Dragon Ball's popularity can be easily traced to the English anime, so it's more likely that the average person (fan or non-fan) is familiar with anime's quirks, not the manga's. I'd have to agree with those that argue the English anime's romanizations and translations should be used first. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, too. I have no problems with the anime translation, spellings, naming conventions all taking precendence over the manga version, since the anime is what most people know. I don't know why I draw the line at eliminating half the character's name, and I'm starting to feel a little silly arguing the point, since I'd never have noticed or cared if the entire discussion had taken place on the Son Goku page. I've had my say, I'll go with consensus. Doceirias (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I actually commented in that discussion back when I was a Wikipedia newbie. Shows how far I've come since then :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "eliminating half of the character's name". No guideline even suggests such a thing. The only relevant guideline establishes that the common name should be used, never mentioning that shortened names shouldn't be used, because they should be used if the shortened name is what most people know the character as.

And let me ask, is there any REAL problem with using Goku? Extra emphasis on real. I don't mean "being the most accurate", because William Jefferson Clinton would be an example of "being the most accurate". Using Goku (Dragon Ball) does not create confusion at all. People who read the manga would understand who Goku is, people who do not would not understand the name Son Goku, and because of this and the fact that the guidelines say that the title should be the "least surprising for a reader to see it titled as", Son Goku is factually a less helpful title for those who are trying to learn about the series, the absolute top priority group. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to point out that for people who have never heard of Dragon Ball, "Son Goku" and "Goku" will both have the exact same significance. For those familiar with only the anime, "Son Goku" is nowhere near as confusing as, say, "Kuririn" might be. The difference here is in omitting part of the name versus using a different romanization. Personally, I feel that "William Jefferson Clinton" is not a good parallel, since most English speakers don't think of individuals in terms of their middle name (and many people will go to great lengths to keep their middle name a secret), and because "William" is very commonly shortened to "Bill" anyways. And if you're familiar with the anime, it's not too hard to figure out that "Son Goku" can only refer to "Goku", since there is no other character in the series named "Goku". —Dinoguy1000 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter. Guidelines say to use the name that would be the "least surprising" to the reader. It says to use the most common name for a reason, and it never says to use the most accurate name for a reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Link, can you find someone who actually agrees with you? I know I've asked you that in past discussions, but don't recall a response. So far, WP:CONSENSUS is against you, no matter how much effort you put in bantering. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides Nohansen, Sephiroth, NeoChaos, and Snapper2? Consensus is important, but more important is evidence. Do you have a consensus because there's strong evidence with your side, or do you merely have a consensus because people want to stonewall efforts to enforce the guidelines? I've clearly established that using a less common name violates multiple guidelines, including one you've cited in the past. On what grounds do you argue that Son Goku is an exception to WP:MoSJP and WP:NC? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Doceirias. He sort-of agreed when he said he had "no problems with the anime translation, spellings, naming conventions all taking precendence over the manga version, since the anime is what most people know." Still, it's surprising that you, Link, are still in a fighting mood when people are (sort of) agreeing with you.--Nohansen (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR. The Viz manga and Japanese anime are just as official as the Funimation version and other dubbed media. And as many have said before, the Dragon Ball WikiProject is not aiming for "recognizable names", but consistent ones. It's more a terminology case rather than popularity. Let me ask you something: why do you want "Son Goku" to be moved to "Goku (Dragon Ball)" and not the redirect "Goku"? And why only argue to move him and not the other characters? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got to ask, though, is there any point in the anime where Goku's full name is unambiguously stated as/shown to be "Goku", rather than "Son Goku"? Otherwise, it could be argued that he is referred to as Goku only because none of the other characters felt like using his full name (though that would be ridiculously close to WP:OR =P ). There seems to be agreement to use the anime versions of the names, except where Goku is concerned, and even there, Goku redirects to Son Goku (Dragon Ball), so I really, really (repeat several more times) don't see a problem. —Dinoguy1000 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm fighting because I'm annoyed that I've had to go through four discussions with people ignoring the several guidelines that flat-out state Goku to be the better name.
2. Please, listen, Sesshomaru - official does not MATTER. At no point is being official more important than being convenient for the reader.
3. And that doesn't matter. By aiming at consistent names (consistent with what?) rather than recognizable names, you're basically saying those guidelines don't matter.
4. Because Goku is the most important. Many people agree that Kururin should be moved to Krillin for the reason that they're merely different romanizations. But Son Goku v. Goku is the real issue (and on that subject, I clearly DO want to move the others, as evident by the fact that I have made attempts in the past to move Kuririn).
5. Well, like I've been saying, even if his full name in the anime is acknowledged to be Son Goku, it does not mean that it trumps Goku - Goku is still what most people recognize him as, and using the more recognizable name is higher priority than using "the more proper names".
6. And redirects don't matter. The guideline still states that the name of the article should be one that the reader would be least surprised to see it at, which would be Goku. As it stands, Sesshomaru insists that the project goes for the "proper names", but never explains why they are allowed to treat them as an exception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen another anime/manga-related character article named with a shortened version of the character's name - whether for reader convenience, recognizability, or any other reason - and any such article would probably be renamed as soon as it was brought to the project's attention anyway. If the anime says Goku's full name is Son Goku, it's in agreement with the manga, and therefore, Son Goku should be retained. —Dinoguy1000 19:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Maybe that's because they ignore the same guidelines that you are? You can't cite articles NOT following guidelines as being a good reason to not follow guidelines.
2. IF the anime did. It doesn't.
3. And why should it be retained? I'm seriously getting tired of asking this so many times and having it ignored every time - why is this an exception to multiple guidelines, INCLUDING one dealing specifically in Japan-related content? The guideline clearly exists, which means that the content inside of it - "use the most common English name" - exists as well. Until you can prove an exception or prove that there exists a guideline of more authority to trump this guideline, then you can't say it's an exception to these guidelines, and if you can't say it's an exception to the guidelines, then the guidelines apply, and because the guidelines apply, the article should be at Goku (Dragon Ball). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring guidelines at all, except to whatever extent my ignorance of the more esoteric ones might be. To the best of my knowledge, all other character articles follow all applicable naming guidelines, policies, and conventions (how about you provide specific examples of others that don't?). I only said "if the anime..." because, in your response to my query on the subject, you merely mentioned that it was possible that the anime acknowledged Goku's full name to be Son Goku, rather than providing evidence one way or the other (it would be easy enough to prove that the anime shows his full name to be Son Goku, as it would require only a single occurence; disproving it, however, requires that every instance of his name (spoken, written, etc.) be shown as only being Goku). And you still haven't responded to why you think the article should be moved to Goku (Dragon Ball), instead of Goku, which already exists as a redirect to the current article. —Dinoguy1000 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the opening statement of WP:UE - "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". This is the English dub, therefore we're using them. This really isn't an argument, and invoking WP:IAR here doesn't work, especially when there's significant opposition to it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are not a food. But also, WP:UE and WP:MoSJP are not esoteric in the least - they are necessary guidelines that apply completely to the Goku article. Why won't anyone ever explain why this is an exception to those guidelines? And two points on your "finding Son Goku in the anime" - one, YOU have to find it, I don't have to look through every episode to prove that it's not there if you haven't gone through them all to prove that it is. I can't disprove nonexistent proof. And two, finding one instance of it does not establish that it's the best name for the article, according to both relevant naming convention guidelines. And why does it matter why I want it at Goku (Dragon Ball)? You seem to oppose that and Goku regardless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to them. And personally, I don't care enough about this issue to take the time to hunt down such occurences, even if I am opposed to moving the article. If this bugs you that much, you're free to discount my opinion, but if the article gets moved, it should be moved to Goku, not to Goku (Dragon Ball). —Dinoguy1000 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Son Goku is used, that's not the issue. The issue is which is most common.

And forgive me if I am overtly aggressive. But I have had to deal with opposition that refuses to listen to guidelines, and it's annoyed me. I've clearly established that these two guidelines support my argument, and if opposition can't prove its argument, I don't think dragging this argument out isn't worth the time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, appears we're going to move/rename:

• Son Goku (Dragon Ball) → Goku (not Goku (Dragon Ball))
• Kuririn → Krillin
• Yamucha → Yamcha
• Majin Boo → Majin Buu
• Son Gohan → Gohan
• Tenshinhan → Tien Shinhan (or Tienshinhan?)
• Son Goten → Goten
• Muten Roshi → Master Roshi
• Freeza → Frieza
• And change the names of characters in the various Dragon Ball lists to their [Funimation] dub counterpart

Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More than agreed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of the move targets have been edited, so they can't be moved to them, and Majin Boo is protected from being moved. Admin help please? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark the move targets for speedy deletion under criterion G6 (you can do this pretty easily with {{db-g6}}), and request page unprotection for Majin Boo at WP:RPP. —Dinoguy1000 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This may be rather late in the argument, but I was unaware of this change. I completely, wholeheartedly, and honestly agree with everything that has been said here first by Collectonian, followed by Lord Sesshomaru, and in hindsight, reflected by Doceirias. They have applied only their logical thought to this issue. Any anime or manga should be following the same exact consensus, that of which is the land of its origin. If the initial names were created by Toriyama and his names were kept intact by the original manga and original anime, then why adhere to the limited recent names given after 1996? That is nothing but a mindless train of thought, bound to failure. If someone decided to call someone else by a nickname, that wouldn't change their initial name given at birth. It's the same concept here. The name of Freeza, is Freeza, not Frieza. Of course, the majority may know the character as Frieza, but that does not mean that it is the original name. Lets not forget that the Japanese is the first and foremost resource for following the initial merchandise releases. Everything else is either a dub or subtitle. This particular anime was translated in like 50 countries...so what does that mean, are we do adhere to 50 different names for these same characters? Absolutely not. The original names are what should be followed. There's no reason to bicker about that. Of recent, I have been thinking about this issue, and the consensus is simple. All the wikipedia pages need to follow the original character names ascribed to them. There isn't much room for argument here. It's commonplace to say that the English version is most famous...but that doesn't change the fact that it is not the original, and therefore, limited at best for an encyclopedic resource. Zarbon (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what verson of the names we use, but it would be nice to pick a format and stick to it. So are we useing the American (Funimation Dub Verson) names or not? When will this take effect if we are? And btw I am more familur with the Funimation Dub versons of the names, but that does not mean everyone is. I don't mind it either way. - Prede (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Zarbon, you do realize you need one single guideline or policy backing up anything of what you said? I've clearly established that official Wikipedia guidelines support using the common English name when there is one. You say that we should follow the original - not because it'll improve Wikipedia according to any code of quality on Wikipedia, but because of your personal preference. If you want it to be slanted towards Japanese names, there IS a Japanese Wiki. And no, we shouldn't use all 50 names. Besides the fact that we picked the ENGLISH names on the ENGLISH Wikipedia, we picked the names that would be the most helpful to the readers. Are you implying that Wikipedia was not created to help a majority of people? And I like how you say there is no room for argument. I can't see why, you didn't fill it up much. I'm really interested in the idea that people will learn less because the name Frieza is not used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with this as well. All the romanization choices are equally legitimate, and it makes not sense to go around naming everything with a direct transcription of the katakana (which would be Furīza.) I would prefer to have the emphasis placed on the original work, myself, and using the names from that version, but if consensus prefers the more popular version, that is equally acceptable. I never objected to using the dub names here; I just did not think using the dub names required us to eliminate a rarely used surname. But I'd never arguing in favor of anything as unrealistic as what you've suggested. Doceirias (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Like Doceirias, I prefer to have the emphasis placed on the original work. For example, I'll take the name "Tomoyo Daidōji" over "Madison Taylor" any day of the week for two reasons: 1) "Tomoyo" is the character's actual name; and 2) "Madison" is, for all intents and purposes, a different character from "Tomoyo". But in this case, the change is not that drastic. It's merely a difference in the romanization, and the issue is picking the romanization readers would be most familiar with.--Nohansen (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, familiarity and originality are two different things. Just because the English dub is well known to English readers, doesn't mean that it is the best resource. What all the wikis should be doing is sticking to the original names because that's what they are: original. The incorporation of English names and removal of Japanese names as main titling isn't a worthwhile contribution change just because the majority knows one more than the other. The majority knows Ozzy Osbourne by his stage name. Does that mean that we should forget about his real name: John Michael Osbourne? The same pretext should be used for fictional characters, henceforth using their "birth on screen/manga" names. The birth of these characters is their Japanese names. This is all that I am trying to maintain here. Zarbon (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozzy's article is "Ozzy Osbourne", not "John Michael Osbourne". And it's not forgotten, because the article acknowledges his full name in the lead. But again, that's not the same as "Kuririn" vs. "Krillin"; where the character's name is the same, just spelled a little bit different.--Nohansen (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And no, articles on fiction don't "deserve" the same rights as real-life people. You may WANT to emphasize on the original work, but that's not how Wikipedia works. The purpose of en encyclopedia is many - but one of those is to make sure that the name of the article is what English audiences would most recognize, and it is NOT the original name they would most recognize. The only ones helped by using the original names are people who don't even NEED to read the article, because in all likelihood, they know about the characters and the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Link, but that makes no sense at all. I don't see why articles on fiction don't "deserve the same rights" as other articles. I don't understand how "the only ones helped by using the original names are people who don't even NEED to read the article" when people who don't even know the series or the characters would likely search for its articles. Or why Wikipedia articles shouldn't "emphasize on the original work". You shoulda quit while you were ahead.--Nohansen (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I never said other articles, I said real-life people. Goku does not have the right to his "original name", while some people may have the right to their original name. The reason being that we are supposed to go with the common name in Goku's case, but with people, it's much more lenient. The extent to which the common name guideline applies to real-life people is far more lenient than for a fictional person.
2. Um? I'm not sure what your second point was. I was pointing out that the purpose of using the original names - ie, Son Goku, Kururin, etc. was to help those who do not need to read these articles, because they are likely well-learned on the subject. The people who are not well-learned are the people that the titles should cater to, according to guidelines.
3. I never once said that the article should not emphasize the original work. I said, and I only said that the user may want to do so, and it was clear that I was referring to his attempts to emphasize it in the title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I can't find an instance where WP:COMMONNAME applies differently to fictional and real people. In fact, an example article of that naming convention is James T. Kirk, where the article uses the character's full name, instead of his common name "Captain Kirk".
2. OK, a concrete example. People who know (or have heard) about "Kuririn" or "Krillin" and the only ones likely to search for his article; people who don't know who (or what) "Kuririn" or "Krillin" is, won't likely search for the term, so the title is not really catering to them 'cause they don't know the difference.
3. Well, if that's what you meant, then there's no need for me to refute.--Nohansen (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It's an obvious different standard. A real-life person has more rights to his full name than a fictional character does. Looking at George W. Bush, if his middle initial were unabbreviated, that would not be surprising - people may find it odd that his name would be in full, but eh. Looking at Son Goku, people learning about a fictional character's full name IS indeed a surprise to them. It's not something they would expect or assume. In the case of James T. Kirk, I don't know if that's right or wrong. I would have to be a little more learned in Star Trek to make a judgment on something like that - a lot of people know him as his full name. But that's not what we're discussing here, what we're discussing is fictional versus real-life.
2. People who have heard of Kururin are, in all likelihood, more well-learned. People who have only heard of Krillin are less likely to be well-learned. But Wikipedia does not care about that, the purpose of Wikipedia is to help the person who is the least-learned of Krillin (but enough to WANT to know about the character). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but learning Goku's surname would be a pleasant surprise... In all seriousness, I don't understand see the difference between commonnames and fullnames of real or fictional people. And, apparently, the naming convention doesn't either since the commonname of "Captain Kirk" is not the article's title. This seems like a case by case situation.--Nohansen (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a case-by-case basis, it's an unfortunate problem with people putting fan preference into Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But Kirk's article is cited in the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. It wouldn't be there if it was only an example of "fan preference". If there was something wrong with it, they would be using another article as an example and the page would have been moved ages ago since "Captain Kirk" is the common name (see also "Mr. Miyagi"). That's what I think.--Nohansen (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Its mention there is for an unrelated subject, it has nothing to do with the name at all. And may I add that James T. Kirk IS very common, it is a very, very common name. A lot of people know it, and I who watched maybe one episode of the original show knows his full name. Captain Kirk may be more common, but James T. Kirk is of "comparative commonness", to the point where it's appropriate to use the full name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about the fact that Kesuke Miyagi is used instead of Mr. Miyagi? That could be a precedent for the "Son Goku" vs. "Goku" argument. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Another article being at a certain target is not an argument for or against anything. This is a case-by-case basis - Son Goku is not an exception JUST because Kesuke Miyagi may be. Honestly, this is the closest thing to an argument of exception. Son Goku can't be the title JUST because another article uses a less common name, there has to be a specific reason why. Are you arguing that Son Goku is well-known enough to be an exception? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely suggesting that having the surname in the page title isn't unheard of. However, you are right that "Goku" is more well-known than "Son Goku". Here's something else that bothers me: why use dub names if the rest of the information in the context comes directly from the manga? Do you follow? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Link, this is either a case-by-case situation or it isn't. You can't say it isn't, and then turn around and say it is.--Nohansen (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Goku" vs. "Son Goku", I think the current arrangement works best: with "Goku" redirecting to Son Goku (Dragon Ball) and a hatnote in Goku's article.--Nohansen (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I could have sworn we had this whole thing settled. As long as Goku vs. Son Goku is the only dispute, could the other moves (except for Gohan and Goten, since they'll be directly affected by the outcome of this debate) be performed first before debate on this continues? And as far as my position on the matter, I've made it quite clear, but I'm tired of arguing over it and at this point will agree with whatever decision is made. —Dinoguy1000 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to getting all of the impossible moves fixed or getting Majin Boo unprotected.

And Nohansen:

1. It IS a case-by-case basis, I never said it wasn't. The problem lies with an attempt to say "this article does this, so this other article is allowed to follow suit", not questioning whether following that article is the RIGHT thing to do.
2. And I disagree strongly with Son Goku - Son Goku's not nearly as common as the two examples you provided. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Link, I asked you a question above. Did you read it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no convention for content. The content is based on the manga because it is the original version and takes precedence. We don't use the "most common information". In fact, there should be a section on anime-only content and manga-only content - the main summary should only be content shared by both anime and manga. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to take a second to weigh in here, for whatever it is worth. I think the flaw with Dragon Ball is simply just the nature in how it's licensing has jumped around in America. Too many people dipping into the pot. The reason I like "Ignore All Rules" with DB and going case by case with optimal romanizations is because outside of the original version everything else is a clusterfuck. Common arguments- Goku vs Son Goku. Kinda like debating Kakashi vs Kakashi Hatake. This argument is about using a full name versus the popular useage of the given name. Yamcha vs Yamucha or Kuririn vs Krillin. These are basic romanization disputes. Then we have things like Tenshinhan, Freeza, and Chaozu vs Tien Shinhan, Frieza, Chiaotzu. These... I really don't know what they are. "FUNimation loves the letter I" disputes, maybe? And then there are the small handful of flat out changes (Hercule, Bardock's crew, etc). My personal thoughts on each "category." Son Goku vs Goku- I realy see this as a silly debate, because people bring up how to romanize as if that is the actual issue. That sort of thing would imply an argument of, say, Goku vs Gokuu. This is just a question of whether or not to use a surname. I tend to think it is silly because it is fairly common for a character to be known by a shorthand version of the name, yet articles by and large use a more complete name. For example, there is a FA class article on Padme Amidala, not simply "Padme." I'm sure there are arguments against as well, but I'm not trying to argue, just making a point. Yamcha and all, I really don't have an opinion on. The "i" names- can we please at least not call these romanizations? They were typos. Tien was a flat out change, they through the "Shinhan" in half a decade later to shut fans up. Frieza- "ie" is not an acceptable way to produce a long "e" sound in either language. I've heard arguments about factuality taking a backseat to popularity. I think that's a dangerous road for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a "multi-lingual, open content encyclopedia project." An encyclopedia is a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." The total change ones I am against as well, at least in two specific cases. One- the often argued Mr. Satan-Hercule. Even if we choose to go by JUST the anime, we go by Mr. Satan. Hercule was censorship. The show barely broadcasts on TV. The season sets are the primary outlet for the series now, and these DVDs are all uncut. They haven't gotten to the Cell Games yet, but assuming they use the same track as their original release, the character's main name will be Mr. Satan. The other is Master Roshi. Muten doesn't translate as Master. Roshi is the closest to that (or teacher). If we're going to just go by honorifics, I'd say Kame Senin/Turtle Hermit fits as a better title. I say that because going by Master Roshi over Turtle Hermit would be a choice in using his name over his title- but his anime dub name is just a title anyway. That's it from me. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I'm fairly inactive these days anyway, so I won't really be a major participant in whichhever direction is decided upon (at least until October). Onikage725 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed multilanguage, and the most common names, internationally, for these character are, to the best of my knowledge, "Son-Goku", "Kuririn", "Yamcha", "Boo", "Son-Gohan", "Tenshinhan", "Son-Goten", "Kame-Sennin" and "Freezer". Are you suggesting we go with those, or the most "correct" romanization? AdamantBMage (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maison Ikkoku and Ranma ½ chapter lists

I have an interesting problem: I recently started working on a Maison Ikkoku chapter list, only to find that whereas the original Japanese version is 15 volumes long, the first English translated version has been shortened to 14 volumes (whether by editing or reorganizing chapters, I don't know). A similar problem exists for Ranma ½ (which doesn't currently have a chapter list, though I've been meaning to start on one), which goes from 38 volumes in the Japanese version to 36 in the English version. Any thoughts on how these should be handled? There is no mechanism in {{Graphic novel list}} to deal with this (nor, more than likely, would one be possible). —Dinoguy1000 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh...now that is an interesting question. Any source for where/why/how it was done? My initial inclination is to put it in the lead, but that would make the summaries and chapter lists off. Hrm.... -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any sources on it in either article, but the Ranma ½ article does discuss the difference in one section. I think, regardless of how we decide this, a note in the lead would be appropriate in both cases. —Dinoguy1000 19:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And apparently, Viz's official Maison Ikkoku volume list, which only lists the second edition volumes, skips any mention of volume 14. Ugh... —Dinoguy1000 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find Volume 14 at Amazon.com. First and second editions.--Nohansen (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but the first edition of volume 14 is the last volume of the series (in the first edition), hence the problem. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always create two lists. I don't see a problem with that, as long as the Japanese releases list is created first. With a Japanese-only list, you could add the bunkoban, wideban, shinsoban or whatever other re-editions exist without the list getting too long or crowded.--Nohansen (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You will also encounter the same thing in terms of 1st and 2nd editions with the Viz releases of the Ranma GNs. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth it to have one list dealing with Japanese publication and another dealing with English publication? There was a split I know for One Piece episodes, distinguishing between original and US broadcast since the latter made changes. As another point of difference, I know that the covers for the Ranma ½ GNs are very different between versions. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no, that isn't done (and as a side note, the separate One Piece episode list is being merged back with the main one). The cover differences isn't something to determine having them split, as several series have had that done (Rave Master being one). Nice to put both in, though, to show such as was done with List of Rave Master chapters. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, editors at List of Oh My Goddess! chapters had the same problem, so they chose to use a table with each chapter in a different row, and each volume in a cell that spanned the appropriate chapter rows (look at the page, it'll make more sense than if I sit here and try to explain it better). I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's certainly a unique approach to a problem that seemed to have all of us licked... ^_^;; —Dinoguy1000 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, any thoughts on how to handle this? For lack of a better solution, I would format the lists similarly to List of Oh My Goddess! chapters, but I don't have access to the Japanese volumes, and as such, I don't know what chapters are in each volume. —Dinoguy1000 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shonen Jump and story arcs

Yes, I know, generally story arcs are deleted with vehemence when they're found, but still, I figured I'd ask... The North American Shonen Jump frequently divides the manga it serializes into story arcs - for instance, Naruto has been divided as follows (I don't know all the details, but this is what I do know; also note that Shonen Jump starts chapter numbering over from 1 with each new arc, so I don't have exact chapter numbers in all (most =P ) cases):

• Naruto: 1-~114
• Orochimaru's Invasion: 1-24 (~115-139?)
• The Return of Itachi: 1-10 (~140-150?)

(serialization skip)

• Kidnapped: 1-36 (245-280)
• new story arc starting in September '08 issue (281-?)

Is there any place for these story arc details in any lists of chapters, or am I wasting my time by asking? Of course, I would be sure to first make sure of chapter numbers before I added any such information, but if project consensus runs against even this, then I won't bother in the first place. ;) —Dinoguy1000 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are published with arcs, evne if not in the original, people are going to see those and look for information about arcs (such as what was in which, what have they missed, and so on). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, even the Japanese official publication uses these, or at least retconed after full series is published, as in Japanese X篇, but more usual simply 第一部, 第二部 as in Naruto. Yet the chapter number in Japan remains the ascending order without renewing. A recent series example would be Bleach, first 8 manga is 死神代行篇, 尸魂界篇, 破面篇. MythSearcher^talk 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually chapter numbers remain in continual sequence. I can think of a couple (Cross Game and Crimson Hero, off the top of my head) of numbering resets. But otherwise, your point stands, and we should follow the numbering of the original form. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that we "reset" the chapter counts where they get reset in the magazine/whatever, I was merely pointing out that Shonen Jump makes a habit of doing it whenever they start a new arc. ;) —Dinoguy1000 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally the arcs are removed because they are fan creations and unsourcable. If there are official arc names that are sourceable, then I think its fine to use the names for splitting a long chapter list into sections. Beyond that, maybe a sentence or two in the lead to mention the series spanning X story arcs. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this at first, but I haven't noticed story arcs as presented in Shonen Jump being carried through into the English tankōbon, so whatever doesn't get serialized in SJ (in this particular case, I'm not speaking for other (English or Japanese) magazines) won't have official arc information present (unless they publish such info on the website somewhere, or I've been overlooking it in the volumes). Once again, using Naruto as an example, SJ skipped the serialization of around six (IIRC, I'll have to look up the exact number) volume's worth of chapters at the end of Part I before beginning serialization of Part II in January. —Dinoguy1000 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually I see the names at the end of each arc. If labels something like 第一部完 (end of First part, which is also mentioned in Genshiken that it is a tactic used rather commonly nowadays that it does not label the end of the series but only part 1 of it, but may never continue to part 2 in the future. My own speculation of such series examples include Blue Seed and MX0.) MythSearcher^talk 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To get a better feel for the frequency with which Shonen Jump labels series with story arcs, I've started a page at User:Dinoguy1000/Shonen Jump story arcs that lists each issue of SJ seperately and what chapters were serialized in it. It's far from done (it only lists three issues out of 68 lol), but if anyone has back issues handy (particularly older than October 2005), you're welcome to list them. When I get home, I'll see about starting on listing my own collection of back issues (as well as reading the issues I got from the library ^^). —Dinoguy1000 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#C Class

A Class

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#A Class

Importance scale

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Importance scale

Reliability of sources

Question for the group: For convention coverage, is "Fansview" a reliable source? For Sailor Moon/Seiyuu related topics, is Hitoshi Doi a reliable source? Your input is requested. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitoshi Doi already answered no cause it still a fansite and does not meet the RS criteria. Here is an actual link to Fansview: http://www.fansview.com/ and per its about page, it is run by a single author (self-published), who is an anime fan who likes to go to conventions. Its a fansite and does not meet WP:RS. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)::Your opinion has been noted. I am seeking wider opinions than just yours dear. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, friend, I will stop with the dear stuff, Colle. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe in mirroring, friend. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the view of it being not a reliable source. Self published stuff are always not RS. Use something else if possible. MythSearcher^talk 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when long standing review sites like Anime Jump are being pinned as "unreliable" when they have nearly a decade long history of reviewing anime and that direct quotes from panels are being challenged from a solid website like Fansview (again 10 years of reports), I question whether anything is reliable enough. Does a ten year history of reporting on anime not make them an expert yet? And if not, how can the fan-produced animeondvd.com be used in the very same manner? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can the data on that site be collaborated with other sources?

The main problem I see is that the website makes claims, but does not seem to "cite" the data itself (to a specific convention on a specific date).[I would have preferred more specific detail] If this were the case, I would regard it as reliable for direct quotes, but not for interpretations; condition being that the persons (whom are quoted) are reliable sources themselves.

G.A.S 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The website does state that at so and so convention, Keiko Han made a statement. The article was a "news" report of a panel with Sailor Moon seiyuu. The link which was tagged is also a second citation of the same statement which was linked to a published source which is readily verifiable. I've reviewed the linked discussion and found that, contrary to Collectonian's statement, Hitoshi Doi being used as a source was supported by the majority of people involved in the discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See also #ANN's encyclopedia - RS? above, specifically #Drafting blurbage. This feels like the same thing to me. G.A.S 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case I would have cited the person, not the convention, even if you link to the website. I can unfortunately not say that my opinion is absolute, and I although I would regard the site as "Generally Reliable", something keeps nagging me that it would come under fire were this WP:FAR. I would prefer if the other editors also replied regarding this. G.A.S 12:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Following that criteria, Fansview's coverage which states who, what, where and when would be a reliable source as a news release of the convention statement as used in the Sailor Moon article. Hitoshi Doi's would also be at that level according to that scale since it is ratings information. Both of these are supplemental citations supporting a reliable, verifiable source. These most likely, based on the discussions linked and common sense, should not have been tagged as "unreliable" in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have preferred if they gave more detail. But, the tag being added, it would have been better to leave it there and engage in a discussion regarding the validity, or lack thereof – note:I do not regard edit summaries "discussions". It should have been mentioned here or at WP:SM at that time. G.A.S 13:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The removal of unjustifiable tags isn't something that should require discussion, IMHO. I boldly removed. She reverted and cried foul. Then taunted as I brought the question up here in a centralized location. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing a person violates WP:RS (we can not cite what we heard at a speech, etc, as others must be able to validate it). At least two actual reliable sources, ANN and AoD, regularly do convention reports. If they are valid and relevant, other sources should exist than a self-published fansite. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that no matter how long one work on their own, one cannot prove him/herself to be a reliable source. I have watched anime for over 20 years, and commented on a lot of things since before Evangelion's debut in Japan, that means I have more experience than that questioned site. Does that make me an expert, my comments becoming reliable sources or any better than other wiki editors? I don't think so. A fan site is a fan site, if it quotes from official sources and clearly state its claims and quotes, it could as well be a secondary source. If it quotes from other fans and cite them properly, it could be a tertiary source, but without and citations, per WP:SPS, Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. since it is an official policy, I don't see and loop holes for using it as a reliable and verifiable source, unless the author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. MythSearcher^talk

As Hitoshi Doi has been. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew that quote was somewhere, just could not find it. Well spoken. G.A.S 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he has no. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitoshi Doi has been referenced in a number of academic works, is known as an expert on a number of anime-related topics, and will continue to be so even if you don't like it, Collectonian. All of us already know you are biased against Doi, and do not consider him knowledgeable or reliable for anything. That doesn't change the fact that he's been known as an expert in the field to the English-speaking world for over 20 years. His site has been around for around 15 years (almost as long as web browsers), and as I wrote above, he's been referenced by a large number of academic articles, books, and general articles about anime and seiyū. And he doesn't run his site alone. He has a number of people who contribute information to it, and content is regularly checked for errors (though with how big his site is, that gets harder and harder to do as it's a volunteer project with a limited number of knowledgeable editors contributing). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence, though? Several times its been said he's been referenced in a number of academic works and is considered an expert...but what academic works? Where is he declared an expert? No one every listed even one in the last discussion, so where are all these works? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One I know of just off the top of my head is an article called "An Animated Imbalance: Japan's Television Heroines in Asia" by Anne Cooper-Chen and published in a journal called International Communication Gazette in 1999 (volume 61), pp.293-310. I know I have read others, but I'd have to look them up. Maybe others know of some of them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his synopses of several series (I counted four) are referenced in Comic Art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America through 2000, published by Praeger Publishers in 2004. And they actually referenced his synopses which had been published in Ä-ni-mé: The Berkeley Journal of Japanese Animation, which makes the reference even better as those synopses were originally published on his site, and then published in an academic publication from Cal-Berkeley, which was then cited in another academic work. I'll list more as I find them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back after two weeks working at a youth camp, so I'll weigh in on this discussion. First of all, I've only briefly skimmed over the responses, but they appear to miss one little detail. From the Self-published sources (WP:SPS) section of Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Kevin Lillard is the writer/editor of Fansview.com. He has been reporting on anime conventions for nearly 10 years and is recognized as an expert on the field of anime conventions by both convention goers and convention staff. Lillard has also written several dozen articles on anime conventions which were previously published by Newtype USA and later PiQ, both reliable publications unrelated to Lillard or his website.

Since Lillard means both criteria, it is my opinion that Fansview.com can be used as a source for articles about anime conventions. Though websites such as AnimeCons.com are better for establishing basic facts, such as dates, guest lists, and attendances and Lillard's printed articles in Newtype USA and PiQ should be used over the articles on his website. --Farix (Talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On Hitoshi Doi, Mary Grigsby (an academic) wrote in her 1998 paper: "Two of the more informative World Wide Web URL addresses located are http://www.tcp.com/doi/smoon/smoon.html and http://www.tcp.com/pub/anime-manga/sorted." Mind you, this was in 1998, on an internet where "over 20" Sailor Moon fansites was remarkable, lol. She also uses him as a source. -Malkinann (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Nemo

I've tagged Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland as an anime at another user's suggestion. I've also tagged the NES game based on it, Little Nemo: The Dream Master as an anime videogame stub. Tyciol (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to notify the project of this... (and contrary to my immediate thought, it's not Finding Nemo =P ) —Dinoguy1000 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding ISBN

My usual searches are turning up bupkiss here, so turning to the hive-mind for assistance: I'm trying to find the ISBN for volume 8 of the Chuang Yi English edition of Ouran High Host Club, which was also imported to Australia & New Zealand by Madman (note difference in title from Viz's edition and our article). Chaung Yi's website inexplicably skips the ISBN for that volume and Madman's site doesn't list any of the series ISBNs, and searches on bookseller and library sites are coming up empty. If someone with better google fu or who lives in that part of the world/owns that edition could help out here, I'd appreciate it -- it's the last missing piece of information for List of Ouran High School Host Club chapters. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go: 9812692312. My google fu is strong today. :)-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

*bows down before the master* —Quasirandom (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One Piece work group?

I notice that this anime has come up recently on the talk page. I notice there are work groups for Dragon Ball, which One Piece has a video game together with, and for Bleach, Evangelion and Haruhi which are all shorter animes than One Piece. I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in forming a One Piece work group? There have been problems that have come up regarding articles for this anime, such as whether to create Categories for the different pirate crews or not. I'm also interested in creating a Category:Fictional smokers which is relevant to many characters in this anime such as Sanji, Smoker, etc. which would extend to all sorts of anime, such as Flip (Little Nemo). In fact, it might even call for a Category:Fictional smokers in anime and manga subcategory. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyciol (talk • contribs) 19:48, July 1, 2008 (UTC)

No, categories for the pirate crews are completely unnecessary as they'd mostly only have one article each. The existing category is more than enough. I don't think a workgroup is really needed, but open to others thoughts there. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every task force I've seen for these specific series falls flat on its face and doesn't work. You're free to try though. Notable example of collaboration not involving a task force is the Naruto articles. Five featured lists, five good articles, and one featured topic, and there are perhaps six or seven consistent editors that worked to get them there. No task force required. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AA5116

Ordinarily, I'd ignore user pages, but in this case, this user has only contributed to their userpage (6 edits) and two deleted articles, and all of the nondeleted edits were made on June 12. The page itself consists of a non-notable (probably self-published) (OEL?) manga series called "The Huntress" with all sorts of redlinks, the only Ghit for the author is the userpage, and I didn't see any relevant results looking through Ghits for "The Huntress". The user's talk page consists only of two speedy deletion notices. As I said before, I wouldn't bring this up ordinarily, but the page is being sorted into Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters, and I frankly don't feel it's worth updating the infobox to get it out of there. Any thoughts on what should be done? —Dinoguy1000 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The infoboxes can be removed, as they don't belong in user space per WP:USER (no article cats or templates should be used in user pages, so its fine to remove). However, I've gone ahead and been a little bold and just blanked it, as also per user "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" which is really what this is - someone's personal self advertisement for a not even written non-manga. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]])

All right. I would have gone ahead and done something myself, but I don't have much experience working with userpages (outside of my own ;P ) and wasn't sure what policy/guidelines might have applied. —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Funimation licensed many Geneon properties.

Heads up. Funimation has licensed some (but not all) of the properties dropped by Geneon last year. [1][2]. As such many articles need updating. I've already addressed Geneon, Paradise Kiss and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Article that need updating Ergo Proxy, Hellsing Ultimate, Black Lagoon, Karin, Kyo Kara Maoh!, Lyrical Nanoha, Elemental Gelade, Fate/stay night, Kamichu, the live-action Ninja Vixens work, Rozen Maiden, Shakugan no Shana, Shonen Onmyouji, The Familiar of Zero, The Story of Saiunkoku, The Law of Ueki. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MY TEARS LIKE WATERFALLS. This is a happy day! Um... back to work. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to know...especially on The Story of Saiunkoku *grin* and thanks for the links, will help source when people update without adding them :-D -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its on ANN's convention reporting. *fades* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh -- Kamichu but not Haibane Renmei. Interesting pattern there. Oh, and yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they mostly aimed for the unfinished series first so they would get full marketing and sales potential...oh, just noticed Karin on the list too. To bad Funi doesn't do light novels...they could finish what *blank* Tokyopop decided to stop with only 3 left to go *cry* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair number of completed series there, including Kamichu!. Like I said, interesting pattern. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've crossed out ergo proxy it has been updated. for quick cut and paste sourcing use this (just add brackets)

<ref>{{cite press release | title = FUNimation Entertainment and Geneon Entertainment Sign Exclusive Distribution Agreement for North America | url = http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-07-03/funimation-entertainment-and-geneon-entertainment-sign-exclusive-distribution-agreement-for-north-america | publisher = [[Funimation Entertainment]] and [[Geneon]] | date = [[July 3]], [[2008]] | accessdate = 2008-07-03}}</ref>

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And additional note. Geneon has not gone out of business when you update the article, be aware that only the North American arm of geneon ceased operation. To state geneon as a whole went out of business is factually incorrect. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the addition - Geneon USA did not go out of business either, they just ceased distribution. They are still active as the master license holder for North America and other countries, but are now using FUNimation for distribution of the above titles. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good clarification. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm seeing a problem with info box edits regarding this change. I opted to leave Geneon in place and simply add Funimation as an additional licensor [3] but other editors have opted to remove Geneon altogether. Alternatively, we can list is as "Geneon, then Funimation" [4]. This should remain consistent, and account for Geneon's previous licensing. Thoughts? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Lagoon article has it even a third way,

Geneon
(original licensor)
 : FUNimation

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Collectonian spoke to this on User talk:Mark Lungo's talk page. Pasting here for further discussion

When updating infoboxes to include Funimation's licenses, please replace Geneon or ADV with Funimation Entertainment (full name), rather than added ", then" to it. The infoboxes are for the current information. The prose will handle old licenses. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Though, from what was said below, it appears Geneon still holds their licenses and Funi is just a distributer? If that is the case, then Geneon USA should remain in the infobox, and Funi being the distro should just be in the prose. For ADV, I believe Funi now holds the licenses, so ADV should be replaced with Funi and their holding the license first covered in the prose. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment for Vegeta and Tien

I'd like people in charge to think about reassessing these articles ... I don't see why is Vegeta B-Class and Why is Tien Start-Class ... Vegeta should go down and Tien should go up IMO. But that on you to decide ... Also Gohan should go up SSJ 5 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. G.A.S 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please check Gohan? Seems like B class to me, failing that High C. G.A.S 18:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with the citations, some of them are "chapter ?" with no page. The in-universe info is very big compared to the out-of-universe info, while there are some fansites as sources.--Tintor2 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank yoy, C class it is then, but moreso on the out of universe content vs plot content than the citations. G.A.S 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tnx for looking into it ... As for "fansites as sources", i think that it is ok to use them as long as we all agree that the info stated there is correct. SSJ 5 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not okay to use. They do not meet WP:RS and need to be removed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all rules have to be followed blindly. Wikipedia:IAR. I'm just sayin' ... If we all agree its a good source ... Let it be. SSJ 5 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IAR does not give cart blanche to ignore WP:RS just to allow fansites to be "sources" and let non-verifiable stuff get into articles. They are not reliable sources and they aren't even good sources. If the information isn't available from a real source, it goes. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What info are we talking about? By way of an example, daizex is a fansite, but it is easy to verify their info (they cite their sources). It would likely, then, be prudent to cite in such an example the root source. But if something came from a site like that, the info itself may not be flawed and should just be looked into. For instance, if one were to cite Daizex for info on the burst limit OST coming, you could say "remove it, its a fansite." But the article has a link to the info from CDJapan. That means it is verifiable, and could just be re-cited. Are any of the links in question potentially of that nature? Onikage725 (talk)

In such a case, you should go back to the original source and check it yourself to ensure it is correct, then cite that original source if it is RS. Daizex itself is still not RS. I cite often cite sources in my reviews, but that doesn't make my reviews RS. Its still a self-published, fansite from a non-expert that does not meet the RS qualifications. It doesn't matter if the information is "correct" as the site isn't considered reliable for determining that. If it is correct, and notable information, it will be available in other sources that are reliable. There really is never any reason one "must" use a fansite. If a fansite or other non-RS source is the only one with the info, then the info is either untrue or not notable enough to even be mentioned anyway. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one said that fansites must be used ... I just said that its ok to use them if the info is acceptable by everyone. There is a lot of unsourced on the fan sites but they can be used to illustrate for example, Big Bang attack or The tournament charts. I'd rather use that than the chapters refs (the best case is that in which are both used simultaneously, which I largely support) SSJ 5 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They not only must be used, they must NOT be used. Again, they are NOT reliable at all, and no, they can not be used to illustrate anything. The primary work is a perfectly acceptable RS for non-interprative statements. Fansites never are. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is why people say that it's acceptable to use fansites not for referencing development, reception, etc, but for storyline stuff. If it's actually true, can't the book just be referenced instead? It's more professional, actual proof, and is one step closer to achieving GA or even FA. As for development, reception, etc notes, it's already been agreed upon that it isn't a good idea. Basically I'm missing the point of using fansites at all. If the information is true, then it should already be somewhere, not conviently on a fansite. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden

Hi there - I'm new to this WikiProject, but I just thought I'd introduce myself and let people know that I'll be working on updating the Rozen Maiden family of articles, in case anyone else wants to pop by and help out. I've recently cleaned up the Manga section, complete with info about the new season of manga in Young Jump, and have proposed a few structural changes to the article on the talk page. I also intend to upload some properly-sourced and annotated screenshots for use on the Characters article; if anyone could give me some tips on doing this successfully I'd appreciate it. Hope to see you out there! —dragfyre (talk 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I heavily suggest using the MOS as a guide in you editing, to help you with figuring out how to redo the article organization, and clean up information. Also, be advised that per the WP:NONFREE policy, individual images on the character pages is a big no-no and they will be cut back out very quickly. One or two group images is all that is allowed. I've tagged the article to help point out some of the biggest issues as well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Notability requirements

I notice you guys have an extra notability guideline for manga, in addition to the five at WP:NB, which I totally support and agree with. Without it, there wouldn't be many articles on any non-American comics, unless someone was darn good at scouring native-language sources. I read through past discussions, but am wondering how that guideline come about, and have you ever been challenged by "outside" editors about it? Has Wikipedia as a whole been accepting of the additional criterium? Are you able to point to it when someone slaps a notability tag on an article because it fails WP:NB? Thanks for the background! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who helped draft it because I perceived a need, I've yet to invoke it. I'm not sure anyone outside the project has even noticed it, in fact. In situations I've seen where a manga has had notability concerns, either the article has been successfully defended by showing the series meets one of the five at WP:BOOK or it really has been non-notable, such as it's a one-shot. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new at this, so I appreciate your answers! Are you generally able to satisfy challenges based on #1 (third-party coverage) and/or #3 (made in to TV/film)? If just #1, what kind of sources do you use? I don't find most Asian comics covered anywhere in "mainstream" English-language media. Are online publications that deal with anime, manga, & similar "good enough?" (See, I thought they weren't, so I never use them.) To be honest, I am shocked at some of what I see tagged for notability, especially as they are stubs that actually have references. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple very useful sources are here and here. They still need more indexing work, but some has already been done. Just look for links from these pages in the "What links here" list for a specific article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the resources. What about online resources? Are amateur-but-well-known "industry" websites acceptable to establish notability for series that don't have an anime but also aren't enormous mainstream hits? Like, say, a review on animeondvd.com, or an entry on ANN. Because this stuff just isn't getting discussed in "proper" sources like the New York Times, and yet it's still considered notable. For that matter, do editors outside of this project ever slap tags on your stuff? I see manga articles for series that aren't even published outside of Japan with no references -- have those been challenged? (I'm not challenging them, I'm only trying to get some perspective on why some other articles are.) Thanks so much for your time, everyone! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither AoD nor ANN are "amateur" sites and both are reliable sources. ICv2.com is another good one. They are proper sources, and meet all WP:RS requirements. Occasionally someone will question ANN, but all three have been held up as reliable sources in our GAs, FLs, and our few FAs. For the second question, yes, some manga series that have not been published outside of Japan have been challenged. Some have been kept, others merged. Some of those challenges came from project members, particularly for things like a one-shot. If valid, reliable sources can't be found, in English or Japanese, proper challenging is to be expected and they are either deleted or redirected to the author page (if the author is notable enough to have an article). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wonderful! Thank you for the background on AoD & ANN. I never figured the "rest" of Wikipedia would consider them worthy. That makes things a lot easier. Thank you also for the background on where and why you get notability challenges. I recently got slapped with a notability tag for a Chinese manhua series that's published in five languages (including English), was named in IGN's Top 10 manga of the year, and is sitting on every Borders Bookstore shelf in the USA. I think the editor who did it didn't bother to read the stub, because it was pretty clear he was off the mark, however this info makes it much easier to "refute" the challenge and to generally know what to expect in the future. Thanks again, all of you. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have encountered people(deletionists) who claimed Anime magazines are not reliable sources for Anime and Manga and Hobby magazines are not reliable on anything they think is not notable. MythSearcher^talk 05:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all deletionists claim real magaznes are not RS, nor are all the ones who challenge them deletionists. It really wasn't necessary to even add that part. Yes, some people challenge hobby magazines and other specialized references. Its the same in ANY topic. You really want to get a headache, try following the debates over some science magazines. Has nothing to do with deletionism at all, just different points of view and unfamiliarity with the topic or publication. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is one of the benefits of having projects. Good projects, like ours, can generally be able to say "yes, that's a reliable source for this topic" and we've been able to back it up on those sites. Its much like any other "specialized" topic. Most people outside of the films project don't realize that IMDB is NOT a reliable source, so Films folks have to deal with removing them and replacing them with real sources (they also get the bulk of folks copy/pasting from IMDB, which is another whole issue :P). Almost any printed anime/magazine is also good for a reliable source, except maybe those freebie ones Viz distributes through Best Buy ;-) There also some great books as well. When in doubt, on anime and manga at least, you can also just ask here. :) (Manhua falls under the comics project, so you'd need to ask there for it).-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the Viz freebies be okay? If they're directly from the publisher, what's wrong with them?Westrim (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I said maybe. :P Some might question them as long sales pamphlets and therefore lacking neutrality and usable for more than sales dates and the like (and can't remember at the moment if they list the authors of the little articles in each). Don't think I've seen anyone try to actually use one, though, so no idea if it would be challenged or not. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually the one spearheading the resuscitation of manhwa and manhua at Comics! :) There are great folks in the Comics project, and they do a mindboggling job on the DC & Marvel type stuff and some European genres, but there's just been no one there (until now) who can address the Asian stuff at all. The to-do lists have been immense just for organizational aspects; sometimes I feel actual content won't be tackled until 2010 or so, LOL. The project is very supportive, but I've had to do a fair bit of feeling things out for myself, figuring out what's best and at the same time not commit any faux-pas. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia on top of it all, so I'm not sure what inspired me to attempt this, other than I saw that need. The anime & manga project is so vast and well-oiled, and because of shared aspects of manga and other Asian comics, I've been able to look over your shoulders for many tips. But this is all very much a challenge! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 06:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I welcome to add to the list of references I have on Gundam, Macross, etc. topics? Or is it that I need to first ask here whether they are reliable individually and get a consensus before I can add them? MythSearcher^talk 06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its okay to add them since that page is for published books so they are likely to be RS, though if you aren't completely sure, it doesn't hurt to double check. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian: for most published books on a particular topic, they will likely be acceptable as RS (though perhaps only for a very narrow focus). If you aren't sure, feel free to ask. There are even specific publishers that publish pretty much nothing but reliable sources (like Stone Bridge). A comment on the Viz pamphlets, though: if they have interviews in them, they would be useful. Other than that, I agree that they likely aren't good for much except sales date information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my concerns are mainly about them being third party sources or not. Are official guide books considered third party sources, or are they considered as self-published sources, things like that. MythSearcher^talk 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The are not "self-published" in the way that, say, blogs are, but no, they are not third-party. They are reliable for the purposes of verification of details, but not for supporting the notability of a subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What Quasirandom said. Official guide books are not "self-published" but they are considered primary sources. They are reliable sources and can be used in the article to fill out details, etc, but they can not be used to support the notability of a topic. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, added references. Also, as a side question, the reference of Macross in a Gundam book would be a third party reliable source supporting the notability of Macross, is this correct? MythSearcher^talk 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Only barely. It would need much more than just one. The Macross series, however, has no notability issues, so not anything to worry about.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it is just supporting, not the major source. And of course I am totally not worried about Macross, I guess it concerns more about Macross technology in that sense, since the referenced part is all about technology in Gundam and Macross(Mainly on hybrid thermo-nuclear propulsion). The Gundam Sentinel book also contains author references of S.F.3.D.(S.A.F.S.), Atom Boy, Five Star Story and Mazinger Z all being stories that helped the development of the novel story and background.(Even going as far as saying Sentinel is the Up to date version of Atom Boy at the time.) MythSearcher^talk 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Funimation/Geneon/ADV

There is some mis-conceptions going one between the deal with Funimation and Geneon and some problems with titles that were licensed by ADV Films then licensed by Funimation.

First, Funimation & Geneon partnership. The titles currently involved should not have their licenses updated to say "Geneon, then Funimation". All the animes in the Funimation/Geneon deal should have their license section read "Geneon" only because this is a partnership to distribute select anime series. Similar to Funimation's involvement with Full Metal Panic! The Second Raid where Kadokawa Pictures USA holds the license.

Second, Funimation & ADV situation. Titles involved should have their license part updated to read "Funimation" or "ADV Films, then Funimation" but somewhere in the article should mention that the title was previously licensed by ADV then picked up by Funimation as a result of the ADV/Sojitz breakup. When looking at Le Chevalier D'Eon the article does not mention ADV's involvement with the series, the only thing mention is Funimation is the license holder. New readers that are not familiar with the situation will think that Funimation did the production/dubbing of this series but really it was ADV. Also current series that were stopped mid-way through should indicate the shake up plus the fact that Funimation is retaining ADV as a sub-contractor to handle dubbing and production duties for these series. Keynote Address: Gen Fukunaga, CEO, Funimation (see last paragraph regarding Geneon/ADV). In addition, both Funimation Entertainment and AD Vision should be updated with proper information regarding the topic.

This would help each article that is involved plus better inform readers. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The first is mostly being done by a single editor, which I left him a note about. After learning more about the Geneon ones, I agree that they should still say Geneon as the licensor, with the prose noting that Funimation is the distributor. For the second, it should just say Funimation Entertainment in the infobox, with the prose noting the earlier ADV license and the details. And for my notes, please either use Funimation Entertainment or use a pipe...avoid redirects and all. And when doing updates, make sure Geneon is noting that Geneon USA is the licensor, not Geneon Entertainment, so as to avoid confusion since Geneon USA is the one that closed, while Geneon Entertainment is still quite alive and well. :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops I just spoke to this above in an earlier at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Funimation_licensed_many_Geneon_properties. It appears, I have a conflicting view on how to proceed. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon 4chan Edits and Otakon

Apparently, Otakon has opted to not have a 4chan panel. As a result, anonymous editors are vandalizing the article to voice their displeasure. It seems to be just a trickle of edits right now [5], [6], but here is a heads up. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a problem, request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. --Farix (Talk) 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess!

Hi. I noticed in the talk page of Oh My Goddess! that the 20th anniversary of the manga is fast approaching. This suggests that it might be mice to try and fix the main page before that date, but the page is a tad convoluted. I was wondering if there were any suggestions on where to start. I have a number of good secondary sources, so I have some material to work with, but advice would be very much welcome. :) Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope you got lots of time...that is one big clean up project. Could have sworn I tagged that thing for issues (but its tagged now, anyway, to point out some of the biggest issues and I did a few quick things for big issues). The WP:MOS-AM can help with regards to structure and what sort of content is (and isn't) needed. Most of the images need to go, the OR kicked out, and most sections rewritten. Several of the subpages for the individual releases should be evaluated for merging back into this article as they really don't need to be separate articles at all. With all that done, a production and reception section are much needed, and of course plenty of WP:RS :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have the official book Colours, if things need to be sourced. I suck at writing, so I guess I will fill in for the sourcing part. MythSearcher^talk 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock yourself there -- sourcing's the hard part. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) I typically spend much more time trying to track sources than I do actually editing the articles. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also forgot, I do have two books which have info on the series that I scan in the relevant pages for you (or anyone else) for sourcing as well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any help on sources is appreciated. I've got Napier's book, and about 5 or so academic papers that discuss the series, which is somewhere to start. While it is a big job, having academic discussion of the work is more than just a tad helpful, which is why I hold out the faint hope that it can be done by early August. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ann template merge proposal

I noticed that the ann templates ({{ann manga}}, {{ann anime}}, {{ann name}}, {{ann company}}) all have practically the same code, so I thought it might be nice to have one template that can be used for all of them. I wrote up the code for it here. I used #switch to easily determine which type is desired. The default type is manga. It also supports using "OVA" and "movie" instead of "anime" where it's needed. Also, for articles that only are about one type, it allows you to not put those parentheses after the title. I thought it would be better to discuss this here instead of on all the templates' talk pages. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will we attempt to update the old ones, or just let them replaced one by one as time permits? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say replace over time - the new functions are rather minor. Went ahead and created {{ann}}. Will mention it on the other templates talk pages. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to updating the above templates to just call {{ann}}? E.g. for {{ann manga}}, the code might become

{{ann|manga|2={{{1|{{{id}}}}}}|3={{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}

resulting in WikiProject Anime and manga (manga) at Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Furthermore, could we add functionality to allow {{ann manhwa}} to be merged in? —Dinoguy1000 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's... ingenious! Collectonian, was that what you were asking about before? I added support for manhwa and manhua to the template. I suggest changing the templates like this:

{{ann|manga|2={{{1|{{{id}}}}}}|3={{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|4={{{3|}}}}}

so that the noparen part can be used. For instance: {{ann manga|1598|Naruto}}; {{ann manga|1598|Naruto|noparen}} would give:

Naruto (manga) at Anime News Network's encyclopedia; Naruto at Anime News Network's encyclopedia

Thoughts? --Eruhildo (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was asking, and that would be rather cool if it can be done. :D -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't thinking. I changed all the ann templates that I know exist to use the above code. I also wrote up the docs for {{ann}}. If y'all could go through the docs and clean them up, that would be awesome. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Daiwon update

Hello all. I've been expanding and restructuring the article on Daiwon C&A Holdings, now called Daewon Media. If you want to link to the parent company, you can use one of the previous two names. However, if you want to link to the publisher, you'll want to use Daiwon C.I., which is now a separate article. I've updated all the existing applicable Daiwon C&A Holdings links to Daiwon C.I., and if I made any misdirections, I hope you'll forgive. This is a work in progress so please don't be alarmed if things are a bit messy at the moment. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime conventions article structure

This has been setting on WT:ANIME/CONS for some time and I finally moved it to the work group's page (WP:ANIME/CONS). However, I still would like more input on the exact wording of each bullet point. --Farix (Talk) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime Expo cosplayer image

Kopf1988 (talk · contribs) and I have both removed File:Anime Expo 2008 Cosplayer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from the Anime Expo article. The reason I gave was that the image of the cosplayer was too poor of quality and was purely decorative in nature instead of illustrating the subject or something in the article. However, Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the image to the article without engaging in a discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I am calling for further input by others in the project about this image. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that is a really bad image. An image like that fails the image use guidelines, which call for clear, quality images. As a side note, I've given him a 3RR warning as he's on his fourth revert. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Remove the image. It's cell phone quality, and there are no identifying features of Anime Expo in the image either. It's not like its of an event. Purely decorative cosplay picture. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Anime Expo 2008 Cosplayer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs deleted, so I have nominated it. I can't see it ever being of any use anywhere. Kopf1988 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not even in the Cosplay article, due to quality concerns. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a Commons hosted image, so I voted for delete there due to fair use considerations (Commons doesn't allow fair use images). However I should also note that there are lots of other cosplay pics on there still, as it seems that there's no solid consensus yet as to the legality of these for Commons purposes. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack details

So what's the "appropriate amount of detail" for music releases for an anime series that for each season puts out a soundtrack album, a couple image albums, and singles of OT and ET? I'm assuming track listings for the singles is going overboard. What about track listings for the albums? And what's the standard format to use for these? Any model articles to follow here? Thanks for any assist here. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For track listings, a lot of video game articles are going with collapsible tables, like at Music of Final Fantasy VII (and every other FF game), for instance. Certainly if there's good info, especially for series where the music has a lot of Western coverage (like Cowboy Bebop and Utena to name two) then a page like that might not be a bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. Films said no track listings at all, just the details on who produced, release date, releasing company, and maybe a summary of artists or music type if sourcable. The TV project mostly does the same.The Music project, interestingly enough, does not specifically touch on track lists in their editing guidelines, though albums gives guidelines on their style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Track listing. Video game does the collapsible things (which I personally find seriously ugly), and its held up in GAs (don't know about FAs), but that's specifically with a page of soundtracks. There is also {{Tracklist}} template formatting. In the end, there is no consensus anywhere on the appropriateness of having tracklists in an article or if they should be limited to album pages.

I go with the film model, with one paragraph per soundtrack for series I work on and no track lists at all. Specific songs are only mentioned if notable and discussed in reliable sources, and with op/en themes noted in the episode lists. I also strongly believe the last bit, that tracklists should only be in album articles, and the album article should only exist if notable. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been down this road before, have you? Hmm. What about if it's spun off in a list of albums? Or is that likely to run into non-inheritable notability issues? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep indeed. A tracklist spun off a list of albums or an individual album? For the first, I found dozens of them in AfD, all deleted (along with ones listing all songs used in a series and the like). For individual albums, spinning off from a list of albums will generally have the same result. If it can't meet WP:MUSIC it will generally be redirected/merged to the list or to the artist's page, or deleted (usually just redirected). I'm trying to remember the conversation at Films that resulted in the no tracklists in articles. I'm pretty sure part of it was issues with lists in articles in general, part with WP:NOT for sales catalog info, and just part with it not being notable or relevant to the topic. Highlighting the notable songs, where there were any, was seen as providing more valuable content than just a list of songs on the CD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating a "list of albums/soundtracks" list would be the same thing as a discography, and that's permitted.--十八 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But not with track listings. Those aren't allowed on discographies per Wikiproject Disography, though. :( --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I clarify to you that MOS:DISCOG isn't even a guideline yet, and a WikiProject alone is not a guideline nor policy. That said, track listings aren't taboo as they're in most every article about a single album; I have no idea why they would suddenly not be permitted if you merged a bunch of albums together into a "list of" article unless its a discography which I can see since a discography will most always link to the individual singles/albums; see Foo Fighters discography for an example. So keeping the tracks on a "list of" article of merged albums makes sense.--十八 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh track listings are certainly allowed on articles about a single album or song. They're not allowed, or are "strongly discouraged"(and some editors remove them on sight), on discographies. If I understand correctly (and I may not), the idea is that if an album or single is not notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC and thus get its own article, its full track listing is likewise not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Like other contributors to the discussion, I was simply bringing in how these things have been handled in other situations and how other projects handle related issues. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes lists are made so we don't have tons of articles that fail notability on their own. This is the same reason why we merge character articles into character lists unless a character can be proven to be notable in their own right. Similarly, if an album can be notable in its own right, then it gets its own article; the other related albums can go into a "list of ____ albums/soundtracks" article with track listings.--十八 04:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The question was raised, so I added relevant information to the discussion, that's all. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which makes ya wonder how the FF pages are getting away with it. ~whistle~ -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Music of Final Fantasy X-2 and related pages are "getting away with it" because they are going through GA; it wouldn't work if it was with FL.--十八 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw in that there are a couple of hundred CDs from Prince of Tennis, both soundtracks and character CDs, and that doesn't include the radio show, live-action, musical, or video game soundtracks. Open the door for full track listings and, well...I'll leave it to your imaginations. ;) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So ... summarizing the sense of the meeting, I get that while track lists might be defensible if the albums are spun off in a List Of, they may not be if kept in the series article -- and in any case, they would be better presented in the {{Tracklist}} template (both because that's the standard layout and because they're default hidden). Have I recorded that accurately? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, with the caveat that spinning off into a List of should not be done soley to have a tracklist, but because there are a long list of albums that can not be summarized in prose in the main article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur on this point.--十八 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy compilation albums has track lists and it's a FL... --Mika1h (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, that uses a different (and less graceful) format of collapsed lists than {{Tracklist}}. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It has been suggested that Teito Monogatari and Doomed Megalopolis be merged. Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball assistance

Merge a nearly unanimous consensus, the various disparate Dragon Ball articles, including Dragon Ball (franchise), Dragon Ball (manga)]], Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball GT, and Dragon Ball Z were properly merged back into a single cohesive Dragon Ball article. A single IP however is making all kinds of stink about it, claiming it had no consensus, threatening to sic an admin on me as the merger for "vandalizing" the articles. He's also threatening to undo all of the merges because he says consensus is against the merge by one IP making a short complaint (never heard from again), and two editors disagreeing with the merge (once), and one disagreeing with the loss of info (not the merge itself), but acknowledging that as the info not merged was completely unsourced, it was appropriate. Instead, he says he has eight editors for consensus and discounts my note that seven established editors has agreed with the merge. I've tried to explain to him about as politely as I can that the merge was done by consensus and to bring the article inline with our MoS, etc. He is still at it, though, even leaving messages with multiple admins (to my amusement) complaining about the butchering a "few individuals" have done to the article and calling it vandalism.

Thought I'd post here to get some more voices weighing in and showing him that yes, the merges had project consensus (or, if you do disagree, feel free to state that as well and why since he's only reason is that he liked the old one). Talk:Dragon Ball#What the hell is where the fussing is going on. I'm done yapping with him because he obviously is gonna decide his one voice is somehow a massive consensus against the merge, but perhaps a few other voices would help him see reason since he's decided I'm a "vandal" *insert eye roll* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan at MfD

Considering Wikipe-tan is our mascot, I thought folks might want to know that Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan has been nominated for MfD (again). Discussion here -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances of the nomination are also notable: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2. --Masamage ♫ 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When will this madness ever end? G.A.S 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like now, for now...for the second time, its been closed per WP:SNOW. First was non-admin close, and it was reversed; second is also non-admin, so may be reversed again :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's Nihonjoe or Sephiroth when you need 'em? --十八 07:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't say much, but the last time I saw something this ridiculous was here. G.A.S 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, there is actually an AN/I thread about it! -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"It's a black blob" - priceless, just priceless. And yeah, I would have speedy closed that if I had saw it earlier. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have let someone else close it as I may be considered to have a conflict of interest given my interest in Wikipe-tan and Kasuga's works. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AnimeOnDvd links potentially broken

Since Beveridge sold out to Mania.com, they're in a period of transition and all their urls are changing. No idea what sort of effect this is having on us, but simply navigating the new site is a chore so I can only imagine. Just a heads up. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From the forum postings, the links should supposedly be fixed after the DNS entries all finish updating. Also checking to make sure the actual AoD reviews will be separate from user submitted stuff, or we'll end up losing one of our best reliable sources for reviews/reception :( -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like review redirects have been fixed and existing links are working again. News links, however, are still down. ~back to mourning AoD~ -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't use AoD for anything other than a weekly visit to see what new dvds are coming out. It still is "ok" for that now that they fixed the amazingly bad formatting errors. But we can agree that its no longer the well designed resource it once was. *mourns* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shugo Chara!

I am currently trying to bring Shugo Chara! up to B-Class and would like someone to give it a once over to make sure it meets all of the criteria. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We have B-class criteria now? Not that it's a bad thing (IMO, most projects should imitate MILHIST in this regard). We probably should send all such requests to WP:ANIME/ASSESS though. As for the article itself, it looks good for B-class (prose needs sprucing up before a GA-run, though). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since C-class was introduced. --Farix (Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We are just ironing out some final issues at WP:ANIME/ASSESS, and can then make a final announcement. If you want to list something there in the meanwhile, that will be fine. The idea is to get a worthwhile system going. Any volunteers? G.A.S 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in the infobox name parameter

FLCL has, for some time now, used an image of stylized text for the name parameter in the infobox. I've meant to ask about this for some time, but seeing a similar thing being done on Oh My Goddess! finally prompted me to actually ask about it. I remember there was a bit of debate awhile back over whether anime and manga logos were acceptable for the infobox image in place of a manga cover scan or anime screencap, and general opinions (as I recall) leaned more towards "no", but there wasn't any real consensus (once again, as I remember it). If this use of images is acceptable to the project (and to all applicable policies/guidelines), it would effectively end the debate (not that it's still ongoing or anything). Anyone else have thoughts on this? —Dinoguy1000 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it should never be used for the name param. That isn't an appropriate use of images at all. The infobox gets one image, in the image param. There is no need at all for stylized names in the infoxbox, and I suspect it violates the accessibility guidelines as well. For images that are just logos of stylized text, it probably wouldn't stand up to fair use scrutiny as it doesn't actually identify the series at all beyond the name, which is well taken care of by the article itself. Hence my tendency to use a manga cover or DVD cover as they will usually have one or more main characters, making it better series identifier. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm... it seems my memory of the discussion is far hazier than I thought. =P In any case, that makes sense, and I'll remove the images straightaway (and hope that the devs hurry up and install mw:Extension:StringFunctions already so we can add a check for this type of thing to the infobox). —Dinoguy1000 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the method used in {{Cite web}}, which uses "first" for the name but "authorlink" for links? G.A.S 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking about, GAS... *scratches head* —Dinoguy1000 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to code: All attempts to use image fails? "Demo". {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)"Demo". {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check |first= value (help)"Demo". {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help) G.A.S 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We didn't have a discussion on the use of images in the name parameter to my knowledge, but Collectonian is right in that it shouldn't be used in such a way. Of course, her opinions and mine on the use of logos in the regular infobox image field differ somewhat...--十八 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name field should not use an image of the logo. A logo, per se seems to be quite acceptable, for instance TGV, Pan American World Airways, as is using an interlude which shows the logo Meerkat Manor, The West Wing, Firefly (TV series), Cheers. A scan or promotional picture usually includes the logo, thereby killing two birds with one stone. G.A.S 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Beat ya too it on Oh My Goddess!. It already had way too many non-free images to begin with. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...and I got FLCL. If anyone knows of any others, they should probably go ahead and list them here so we can keep an eye on them, since this seems like exactly the type of thing an edit war could develop over (say it ain't so! =O ). —Dinoguy1000 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that the Oh My Goddess! title image was added by White Cat (talk · contribs) despite several attempts to remove it. Not sure about the history on FLCL. --Farix (Talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How to disambiguate Dragon Ball characters

I'm having a talk over here with an editor who moved Cell (Dragon Ball) to Cell (Dragon Ball Z) some time ago. I disagree with the move, mainly because there was no consensus to do so. I would like to hear some thoughts on the matter. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball is one word, surely? I'm ambivalent. Given that the manga has also been split into two halves to follow the Z naming convention, if a character first appears in the Z section of the series, I can see the disambig specifying that. Doceirias (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the franchise is simply "Dragon Ball". That is the point I am trying to make. Does this give precedence to moving Pan (Dragon Ball) to Pan (Dragon Ball Z) just because she appeared in DBZ first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to use only "(Dragon Ball)". That's the name of the franchise and, regardless of Viz's decision of releasing the second half of the manga as Dragon Ball Z, there is no Dragon Ball Z manga. Cell and Pan were introduced in the "Dragon Ball" manga, not "Dragon Ball Z". Also, WP:DAB says that when it comes to disambiguation, simpler is better.--Nohansen (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's ignoring the official English name based on personal preference. Doceirias (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The franchise is known as "Dragon Ball" in Japan, America and (I'm pretty sure) everywhere else. It's the same reason Category:Mortal Kombat characters use the parenthetical qualifier "(Mortal Kombat)" regardless of when the character was introduced: because the characters belong to the whole series, not just one instalment.--Nohansen (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, we have Chaos (Sailor Moon), not Chaos (Sailor Stars). --Masamage ♫ 05:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to move back the page? And I'd like for this discussion to apply for all fictional characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime image RfC

N-Denizen (talk · contribs) keeps insisting that Image:Old vs New Anime.jpg is a bias image because it was upload by an opinionated individual, Paul "OtaKing" Johnson, and therefore should be removed from Anime. I've tried to reason with this person, but I have a feeling I'm talking to a brick wall. So I'm calling for additional comments on whether the image is bias or not and if the NFU rational is still valid. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of screencaps from different series this image includes, I've got serious reservations over whether any rationale can be applied to it so that it meets FU, etc. Of course, not being overly familiar with image guidelines/policies, my opinion probably isn't worth much there. Aside from that, though, a new version of the image where all the screencaps are the same size and spaced more evenly, and labeled as to what series they're from, would be nice. No opinion on its usability in the Anime article, though. —Dinoguy1000 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the dates seem to be wrong for the series shown - at least going by the Wikipedia articles the rationale links to. I would say that the ones on the left look like what I would think of as "old style" anime and the ones on the right as "new style" anime. I don't really see a problem with having it or one like it in the article, and I don't see such an image as biased. Sounds like someone just has a chip on his shoulder about Paul Johnson. I could care less whether Paul or anyone else created it, myself. If this is going to be an issue, I can easily create a new image that better exemplifies the matter. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be what will have to happen, since the one vehemently protesting the image is making a big deal about it begin created by Paul Johnson. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on it then. Anyone have suggestions of anime series to use? I'm thinking we should have about a 10 year gap or more to emphasize the difference. Right now I'm thinking Akira & Neon Genesis Evangelion for old and Bleach & Naruto for new. I'd prefer to use the more popular series. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Record of Loddoss War was a good choice for the old. Haibane Renmei has good comparable "new" art because of its detailed backdrops and lighting effects. --Masamage ♫ 18:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also think it would be better to include whole scenes instead of facials or portraits. There is more to a style then just the character designs. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It IS a biased image, I've seen several like it. You can make one yourself, too - simply put screenshots of major scenes from OVAs and films on one side, and put images of minor scenes (such as characters just chatting during downtime) from low-budget or extremely long series, then use it as "evidence" that all new anime really DOES suck compared to all the old stuff people watched when they were younger and that they're not just tainted with nostalgia. In reality, the two sides aren't comparable for a variety of reasons including the ones I mentioned earlier, and even if they were comparable, it still wouldn't be accurate because regardless of the quality of still shots, the actual animation was lower in quality and subject to many more obvious animation shortcuts just a few years ago. Those images are usually made and posted by forum trolls and then reposted by people who don't know any better. It really, REALLY isn't encyclopedic. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)