Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

Astroboy needs major sorting out

Template:Astro Boy I created this template but I think that the character section needs deletion especially since there are no references or third person sources used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 July 2008

Which reminds me - anyone with good Japanese skills and access to a really good library? There's a book called Tezuka Osamu kyarakutaa zukan (roughly "An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Osamu Tezuka's characters") by, I think, TezuPro and Ikeda Hiroaki Corporation, that while not independent, sounds like it would be a half-decent reference for Osamu Tezuka's Star System, an article in dire need of sourcing. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The main Astroboy article is poorly referenced but the character articles are even worse Dwanyewest (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot List of Astro Boy chapters needs major sorting out too Dwanyewest (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka's Star System can be fixed using the official website [1]

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, but I'm worried more about the lack of independent sources - the article itself is probably borderline WP:N and no amount of links back to the official website will fix that. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Winner of Shogakukan Manga Award

Should the above category be renamed? Something like "Shogakukan Manga Award Winners" or "Shogakukan Manga Award Recipients" makes more sense. Noveltyghost (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. It's for not all the award winners, but winners of the award when there was only the one category, then the Seinen category when the Shounen/Shoujo categories were split off, which category was later renamed General. Whatever we do, the other category categories (such as Category:Winner of Shogakukan Manga Award (Shōnen)) should be named to match. Personally, I'd rather stick a parenthetical on this one, if we could agree on a suitably correct one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some reading here, and this type of category definitely needs to be plural. The name of the award is placed before -winners in a similar category (Category:Emmy Award winners), so this one should follow suit. The categories would be renamed Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shonen, Shojo, etc.). I'll handle it sometime soon. Noveltyghost (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to have multiple categories; Emmy Award winners doesn't specify what award they won, does it? Shonen, Shojo, doesn't matter - what matters is, they won. Doceirias (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The cat definitely should be renamed to Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners. But I guest the question is, do we really need the sort each award category (shōjo, shōnen, and children) into its own category. If so, then we should follow the pattern set by the Academy Awards. The same goes for Category:Kodansha Manga Award and its subcats. --Farix (Talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for whether to merge or keep the four categories separate. Though I wonder how many articles the combined would get. Note that the category is applied to both creator and work articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The example of Academy Award winners, are you suggesting a pattern like Category:Shōnen Shogakukan Manga Award winners? Seems a bit awkward. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend something like Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shōnen), Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shōjo), etc. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes for the general category (Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners) as there is no debate about what that one should be named. Whoever has the ability should delete the old category. I vote that the categories (Shōnen, Shojo, children) remain separate and parenthesized as suggested by Nihonjoe. Noveltyghost (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let's put up a general request to change the category names for the eight (seven) award categories in question. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how/where). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question, why are Japanese terms used for two categories (shonen & shojo) but not for the other? "Children" is used instead of the Japanese term jidō in the third award category. Noveltyghost (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Because "shounen" and "shoujo" are known in the English-speaking world, in no small part because manga gets marketed with those labels, while the children's category isn't. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will start making all the changes if there are no objections to the above suggestion. Noveltyghost (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper Order of Japanese Names in Articles

I have a question about the order of Japanese names as they pertain to articles about manga and anime (or more generally). From what I have seen, it seems customary to have the Given name first and the Family name second, like in most European or American cultures. For example, Masashi Kishimoto, author of Naruto, is actually Kishimoto Masashi in Japanese. Does Wikipedia have a policy about the particular order of the name (i.e. Japanese names in traditional or Western order)? Or is it more of a stylistic choice for writing articles. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to look for that kind of information. From what I've seen it seems more common to have the names in Western order, but it would be technically correct to have them in their original order. Anyone? Silent Firefox (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's dictated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), specifically the section Names of modern figures that we put names in Western order. There are exceptions to this - Rurouni Kenshin has it in Japanese order, since its setting is pre-Meiji era. There's also the issue that the English translations of these works more often than not use Western order, and since the official translations will be the most common use among English speakers, we use it per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that, if you use the nihongo template, then both are represented anyway e.g. Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮 ハルヒ, Suzumiya Haruhi). Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gundam episode articles

I'm not sure why these exist. You can find the beginning of the trail here: Char and Sayla. There's nothing which says why these episodes have articles, either. I've marked the first one with notability and reference concerns. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no list of episode, then one should and the individual episode articles redirected there. All of the Gundam episode articles I have seen are nothing more then detailed plot summaries that violate WP:PLOT which needs to be dealt with. I just didn't do it because of all of that hoopla over TTN (talk · contribs). --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating a list (or rather, lists) of episodes, merging the episode articles, then editing them down looks in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New anime list

Please see List of anime series by episode count. It's only a beginning list, but I created it because people are always asking about this and I thought it would be useful and interesting. We should try to get references for all the entries, though the only one I have right now is for Sazae-san. Recent issues of Animage would be useful for current shows, and older ones could be used to find older shows. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it may make sense to link to a list of episodes if available. We have about 310 lists of episodes (including season lists) currently, of which at least some might be applicable. I can provide you with a list if required. G.A.S 06:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments. Why the arbitrary number of 150 minimum, and if you're going to even set a minimum, then shouldn't the list be called List of anime series with over 150 episodes?--十八 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the 150 minimum from one of the lists of long television series (link on the page). I'm fine if that number is changed, but I wanted to set it high enough to make the list not insanely long. As for including the number in the title, I don't think that's necessary. Perhaps just changing it to List of long anime series by episode count. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that comment. G.A.S 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why exactly was the list created? What purpose does it serve?
• What is so special about anime series with over 150 episodes versus anime series with less then 150 episodes? On what bases was the 150 requirement chosen?
• How is this list different from List of anime which was deleted through AFD nearly two years ago? --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my post as I answer the first question in the second sentence of my original post: it's a commonly asked question (just search for "longest anime series" on Google), and it's useful and interesting information. Such lists are also encyclopedic (tallest building, longest bridge, oldest person, tallest person, etc.) Additionally, there are similar lists for standard television series and franchises, so I think such a list would be useful here. I answered the 150 episode question above. As for how this is different that List of anime, it's a very narrowly focused list, not an open-ended list which includes every anime show ever made. The criteria for inclusion on the list are very specific, so maintaining it won't be an issue. We just need to find refs for everything now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely gotta answer the 150 question. Many, many anime are only 13 or 26 episodes. (As for references, ANN can probably be considered reliable for total episode counts.) --Masamage ♫ 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sub-thought. The first argument made in the AFD TheFarix linked to is that "List of anime" was a duplicate of Category:Anime. Why don't we just make categories for this, if it's really a subject that needs coverage? Category:Anime with 13 episodes (since that one's so common), Category:Anime with more than 150 episodes, etc. --Masamage ♫ 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A category would be less useful for this kind of thing as the main interest is in comparing those which have the most. This is very difficult to do with categories, but very simple to do with a list. People don't care about which series have 13 episodes, but many people are interested in which series have the most episodes. This kind of list is inherently encyclopedic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Well, I'd still enjoy seeing categories, but they're certainly not mutually exclusive. Maybe List of longest-running anime would be better for assuring the article's focus? --Masamage ♫ 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be better and prevents you from setting an arbitrary minimum number of episodes as an inclusion criteria. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd still have to set an arbitrary minimum number of some sort in order to limit the number of listings, and I don't see any reason why 150 is a bad arbitrary number. In fact, I think setting a minimum number of episodes for inclusion is better than trying to limit it to a certain number of listings. 150 is as good a limiter as any, IMO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the 150-episode bound was taken from the longstanding List of television programs by episode count, which seems to be the model for this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a cool idea, but then again I'm failing to see if the page will be of any major use. Oh, and is anyone planning on adding Bleach to that list? I believe the series has over 180 episodes. ^^ ~ Hyakurei (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masamage in that if we ended up deleting List of anime in lue of Category:Anime, then if we really want to do this, a category seems like the obvious choice. However, I think specific numbers like 13 and 26 would be a problem too since a good amount of anime actually have 12, and just as many have 24. Others have 52, while still others may have 51, and then there are those 14 episode anime. So if we did do this, I think a Category:Anime with 1-26 episodes should be employed since I think that probably covers most anime. Then we can do 27-52, 53-78 and 79-104. I think, then, anything over 105 episodes is pretty rare (in comparison to the hoards of anime with less than 100 episodes) and everything else can go into a Category:Anime with over 105 episodes.--十八 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a use for any of these categories, but if someone wants to make them, rather than try to account for variable episode counts (Air Master, for instance, was 27) I recommend dividing by cours, with a category for 1 cour shows, and a category for 2 show cours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doceirias (talk • contribs)

Dragon Ball redux

Well, we now have a "formal" proposal to resplit Dragon Ball back into separate articles, with the proposal suggesting that DB Z and DB GT have stubs with plot and character summaries. Comments from the project highly appreciated. Talk:Dragon Ball#proposal for dbz and dbgt -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed in a section in Case Closed

I am in the progress of changing Case Closed#Movies into prose, but there is a problem-- I have a hole in the understanding of CC/DC movies for movies 7-9. I need writers to help me fill in this hole. Thank you for your attention!--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this kind of template is allowed...

I'm fed up with the random calls for Detective Conan naming on Talk:Case Closed-- and I assume such occurs for every series whose name have been significantly changed in English. Is that possible we put a template that practically say, "The naming is based on WP:MOS-AM. If you have any disagreement over that guideline, do argue at WT:MoS-AM. Else, get over it." on the top of talk pages of such anime?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I share your fustration. I believe there is precedent for it, though worded slightly more politely *grin* Talk:Bleach (manga) uses a notice box to reiterate stuff that has had to be resaid over and over again. It seems to use Template:Notice (via subst). Template:Resolved issues is another option. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The applicable templates are {{Round In Circles}} and {{FAQ}}. G.A.S 05:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AniDB

Was any formal decision ever made by the project with regards to sites like AniDB? There are a few pages again linking to this site. If we can come to some sort of decision then it may be worth adding something to the external links section on WP:MOS-AM. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was extensive discussion here, and I believe at the talk page for the copyright policy, and maybe the RS notice board. Result was that AniDB should not be linked to at all. All of its templates were deleted in TfDs with the overwhelming consensus that linking to AniDB violates WP:COPYRIGHT. All known links at the time were also removed from any articles that had them. See also: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9#Linking to sites that list illegal files.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting question

Is it appropriate for an anime/manga article to have a "Setting" section, for those cases when a recurring location influences the story as much as if it were a recurring character? --Masamage ♫ 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)/Archive 3#Revisiting Order and Sections. Rough answer is that if it can be sourced to more than just the series, I.E. third party, reliable sources give it at least some discussion, pointing out the influences, etc. then probably. It should, however, be a rarity rather than the norm. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see e.g. Bleach (manga)#Setting for an example. —Dinoguy1000 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episode lists

The 4 Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episode lists could use some project love. I've some some basic work on them, including fixing the table formats, removing false prod codes form TV.com, cleaning up the general refs, and removed the unnecessary see alsos. Some of them were even using wikipedia talk pages as a reference (those refs have been stripped)! Also adding the missing ep list cat. They are still in need of complete intro rewrites, ref improvements (all currently from unofficial sites), and all of the episode summaries need to be checked to make sure they are not copyvio from TV.com as it was previously listed as the "source" for them all. Also, all of them had the English translated titles listed as the Japanese title instead of the romanji. I've moved those titles over to RTitle, so if someone could go back in and add the proper titles to the Japanese field, that would be great. Also, the main Yu-Gi-Oh! GX could use some serious help. Its got a lot of problems and could use an overhaul. The format is all over the place, the refs mostly non-existant, etc. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008‎

Here's what it's all about—WikiProject Anime and manga has about 7,500 stub and start articles, built up over the last few years. The time has come for comprehensive housekeeping and that's what this drive is all about. The main purpose of this drive is two-fold: (1) to ensure that they are within our scope and (2) to ensure that they are correctly assessed for class. I would like to invite everybody to participate in the effort.

Sincerely, G.A.S 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should start with the most well known anime shows because some of the shows I have seen seem to use YouTube or fansites for references for the shows information and plus they are most likely to have easily available info. I have found with some anime shows the most reliable info sometimes is from non english sites unfortunately. I am sad to say I am not Bilingual so I have to use Babel fish which translations aren't so Good.

Here some in my opinion really need fixing

Astro Boy confusing and a lot of unreferenced info in the character sections. Gatchaman and the related Gatchaman articles, very few references Robotech the character section needs doing I tried editing but met resistance as I tried to removing unreliable fansites as references but it keeps being put back up Voltron and Golion again the best info seems to be in Japanese.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be systematic, we are working in order. These drive is not for folks to fix the articles, but simply to check their class and importance assessments and update them as needed. For those articles you feel need fixing, you may want to post to the clean up task force to suggest them as series projects. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The drive has now gone live and will run until such time we are done. Until then, you are very welcome to sign up. Please visit Tag & Assess 2008‎ to find out more about what the drive is all about as well as the rewards up for grabs. G.A.S 05:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something.. should I be updating the importance parameter of the project banner as well? If so, what's the basic guide for that? -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, we have set up a table in this regard at WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Priority scale. Normally the assessment would be low, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is not specifically necessary to update tags on the articles, though—just set |attention=yes<!-- Check tags --> to record that this is outstanding. G.A.S 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Although I have been told that this was discussed before. One of the rules and guidelines for this project state that all terminology in all anime and manga articles had to conform to the English language adaptation. But, what if there are multiple English adaptations with completely different terms for names, places, and things in each adaptation? What do we go by then? Sarujo (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good question. If you can determine which is better known/more popular, go with that, but also note the other. Otherwise, well, good question. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like Gakkō no Kaidan, AKA Ghost Stories, AKA Ghosts at School? In that case the Ghost Stories title was chosen because ADV had the larger native English language market. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As they said. Is there any particular series you had in mind when asking this? It may help to bring the project's attention to it, we could probably help you out. —Dinoguy1000 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was due to a discussion that Sesshomaru and I had here at the WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball about the term for the energy in articles, primarily in the Son Goku article. Viz uses in their translation of the manga "chi". While FUNinmation use in their dub of the anime terms such as "power" or "energy", and their sub, provided by Steven J. Simmons, uses the original term "ki" as does Atari and Namco Bandai in English releases of Dragon Ball related video games. Sarujo (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a fairly long discussion on Dragonball recently, and the conclusion was that the dub version, since it aired on TV, is much better known than the other versions. Obviously, the other translations, and the original term, should be acknowledged; but the dub version of the term would be used thereafter. Doceirias (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, So we should stick with the anime dub? What about Viz, or are you just referring not to based terms strictly on Steve Simmons? Sarujo (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Steve Simmons? The earlier discussion resulted in several pages being moved to the dub names, so for consistency's sake, I would imagine the terms Viz uses would only be mentioned when the word in question is first used. Personally, I would prefer to see things default to the original work, even if the adaptation is more popular, but I can also understand the arguments they've made. What's most important is that all usage is consistent, all words and names come from the same official English version. Doceirias (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve J. Simmons is the guy responsible for the for the Japanese to English subtitles in all the Dragon Ball related DVDs FUNinmation has put out. Sarujo (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Anime and manga participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Testsusaiga name issue

User:Raijinili wants to include this section in the Tetsusaiga article: Here is my take: [2]

• 1. The section contains original research and
• 2. The section is unnecessary. Do we need a whole section about how a name change was made in the English version without verified original information about the name change itself (nothing about why or how it was made, nor anything about the significance)

Also see User talk:Raijinili and User talk:WhisperToMe WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With the correct version in the template in the first line of the article, I don't think much else is necessary. Maybe if he could find a reference to someone admitting in an interview that a mistake was made, you could justify it, but not while it is unsourced OR and badly written (first of all, the name isn't translated, merely romanized.) Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My main points:

• The change is notable, as it is one of few important and frequently-used names which were not romanized in a well-established system. This warrants a mention of the change describing the differences
• It has a significant and unignorable possibility of being an error, as the misreading of the sokuon as "tsu" is easy to make, which can be verified by most people who have read a lot of hiragana, or by the reader who can verify that the "tsu" looks a lot like a sokuon. There is no confirmation (which is not to say no evidence) that would tilt the scales one way or the other. Thus, ignoring the possibility that it's an error violates WP:NPOV.
• English usage for "tessaiga" versus "tetsusaiga" was 7 to 9 against (about 43% of results explicitly used "tessaiga" exclusively, as opposed to "tetsusaiga" exclusively), in a Google "straw poll" of popularity (an acceptable use of Google as outlined in WP:GOOGLE, despite WhisperToMe's implied claims of my Google-usage violating OR).
• The line isn't drawn at WP:RS, but rather at WP:V. The first can be verified by checking the character pages, unless you can argue that those are not reliable.
• The fact that the name in at least one Japanese episode of Inuyasha was proven with a screencap from the show, within a discussion that WhisperToMe also participated in.
• His deleting content which was not harmful to the encyclopedia while the section was in dispute (since I had left a message to him before the revert) was itself harmful to the encyclopedia. This kind of action leads to edit wars, and as an admin, edit wars should be avoided even more than by regular users, since it may then be followed by accusations of abuse. Had I but chosen to follow, we would have likely fallen into an edit war.

Note that I have no special feelings about adding bias towards it being a mistake on the part of Viz, though strictly speaking it is technically an error, whether intentional or not. However, we've put too much undue focus on whether a mistake can be intentional.

I have tried to compromise with WhisperToMe. He pointed out several flaws in the passage I restored, and I told him that they were minor and could be corrected himself, and were no cause for full deletion of content. Since otherwise we'll keep referring to the original addition, ignoring all agreed-on corrections, I'll do a rewrite of the paragraph here:

The name 'Tetsusaiga' is not, while very close to, a standard romanization from the original Japanese name for the sword. InuYasha's sword is actually known as the 'Tessaiga' in Japanese, but when Viz published the story in English, due to either an error or an intentional change, the sword became the Tetsusaiga. The smaller version of the hiragana character "tsu (kana)" (っ) was read as the larger version of the hiragana character "tsu" (つ), which is the difference between the Japanese pronunciation "Tessaiga" (てっさいが) and the pronunciation "Tetsusaiga" (てつさいが).

There. It's verifiable, neutral, and contains no original research (in case you forget, the three pillars of Wikipedia). Now I kindly ask that you stop telling me that I have no right to call it a mistake when I already admitted several steps back that it was a mistake to use "mistaken". I'd rather you argue about how significant the possibility is that it's a mistake, since that's actually relevant. --Raijinili (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that is purely original research. Without a reliable published source to back it up, it doesn't belong on the article. The only thing that can be and is done is to note in the lead that "Tessaiga" is an alternative romanization. --Farix (Talk) 11:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I say. "Tessaiga" isn't an "alternative" romanization to "Tetsusaiga". One of them uses some standard of romanization, while the other is not romanized under any such standard. The whole point is that "Tetsusaiga" isn't a correct romanization, which is notable since it's the only incorrect romanization in the principal names of the series. This isn't to say that Viz did or didn't do this intentionally, but it's still incorrect.

I've challenged that it's "original research." I can't participate in this argument very well if you people would not acknowledge that challenge and respond with something more than a restatement of "that's original research." Please point out claims which you're calling "original research" so that I can respond rather than making a blanket statement.

Meanwhile, I'll do what I can. From Wikipedia:These are not original research:

Obvious deductions

The fact that the sokuon and tsu (kana) can be mistaken for each other is an obvious deduction from their images.

It was incorrectly romanized. This is an obvious deduction from the kana. Are you claiming that adding the kana is OR?

Translation and contextualizing

Giving the kana, as well as claiming that てっさいが is not "tetsusaiga," is translation.

--Raijinili (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...Why can't we just get along with the merge? The page itself isn't notable and has no third-part information. Tetsuaiga is the official Romanization, so it will be called that, and possibley have a little note such as "called Tessaiga in the original Japanese". But a whole section of original research is not needed; unless a third-party source makes a big deal about it, all we need to put down is that it was Tessaiga in the original--just like every other object/character that wasn't romanized correctly. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, in the spirit of WP:Etiquette, that I not be ignored when I say:

• It is not original research. When a challenge to a claim is made, the original claim should not be repeated. It has been repeatedly stated that the whole section is not original research, and the only supporting argument that was made is that it was improper to say "mistaken". I admitted that it was a mistake to use that particular word, yet multiple times after that acknowledgement it was used as an argument against the section, despite my offering to reword it. I challenged that any of the rest of it was OR, yet no one has pointed out any other parts of it as OR.
• It is not a correct romanization, and should not be called a "romanization" without qualifications. It has been claimed that "Tetsusaiga" is just a "romanization," which I have, again, repeatedly challenged, and the only response, again, was a restatement that it was a romanization (if that could be called a response). If you say it's a romanization, show me a system which would result in a sokuon being rendered the same way as a "tsu".
• It is notable. It is the only principal name which has not been romanized correctly. It has a strong possibility of being a mistake.

Instead of addressing my supporting points, they have instead been ignored and the opposing stances restated.

The way that I'm being treated, as a fellow editor with a differing point of view, violates several aspects of WP:Etiquette.

• Work towards agreement.
• Don't ignore questions.

• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

• Concede a point when you have no response to it...
• Avoid reverts whenever possible...
• Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.

• Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive.

--Raijinili (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is not original research. When a challenge to a claim is made, the original claim should not be repeated. It has been repeatedly stated that the whole section is not original research, and the only supporting argument that was made is that it was improper to say "mistaken". I admitted that it was a mistake to use that particular word, yet multiple times after that acknowledgement it was used as an argument against the section, despite my offering to reword it. I challenged that any of the rest of it was OR, yet no one has pointed out any other parts of it as OR.

If you remove the bit about it being a mistake, then it isn't OR, but rather just a bit of information on why it's wrong. The page will eventually be merged (it lacks concept, creation, reception, or any third party notes), and the section would probably end up being lost because the article focus would no longer be on Tessaiga.

• It is not a correct romanization, and should not be called a "romanization" without qualifications. It has been claimed that "Tetsusaiga" is just a "romanization," which I have, again, repeatedly challenged, and the only response, again, was a restatement that it was a romanization (if that could be called a response). If you say it's a romanization, show me a system which would result in a sokuon being rendered the same way as a "tsu".

It doesn't matter whether whether it is correct or not--it's the official translation and Wikipedia uses those instead, even if it is not correct or Americanized, whether it was a mistake or intentional.

• It is notable. It is the only principal name which has not been romanized correctly. It has a strong possibility of being a mistake.

The article does not need a section explaining it, much like Sailor Moon (character). If anything, it'd be in the concept/creation section, which there is none. Unlike with Aerith Gainsborough, it never made much of a deal and caused anything significant to happen. That being said, you can add it, but once it is merged, the information will probably be lost; my guess, the merge will basically only carry over "Tetsuaiga is the sword of Inuyasha", especially because at this point, Inuyasha's character page seems merge-worthy. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Raijinili, this issue boils down to one simple truth: romanizing the sword's name as "Tetsusaiga" may be wrong, but many editors would rather perpetuate the English publisher's mistake out of fear of falling into original research. Unless Viz Media openly admits their mistake, or starts using "Tessaiga", you're not getting anywhere.--Nohansen (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new version has fixed some of my initial problems, but he still would need a source - an interview with Takahashi sounding annoyed by the change, an interview with Viz admitting they goofed. Not because the information isn't true, but to establish notability and justify making more of a deal of it than the nihongo template providing the correct romanization already does. It just strikes me as being trivia; very interesting to a handful of people, but not to the majority of readers. A source like either of the above would establish that it of greater interest than it would appear. Right now, we're basically arguing notable/not notable (and sounding an awful lot like I Like It/I Don't Like It) but the burden of proof for notability is on the people who want to include it. Once someone challenges notability, insisting it is notable doesn't get you very far; you need to find a source and convince them. Doceirias (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WhiteArcticWolf: Regarding a page merge, until the merge is in progress, it's not safe to assume that it will happen. While the sword has its own page, the name change is notable enough for in-page inclusion. When part of a larger article, of course it shouldn't get its own section.

Regarding the officialness, this argument only works against retitling, which I am not advocating.

Regarding notability, I've outlined my arguments supporting its notability within the context of the sword itself. Both names are commonly used in English, and as long as the sword has its own page, the name change is more notable than what the sword can do, particularly because of the change's real-world relevance.

Nohansen: They don't need to admit it is a mistake. As I said before, we don't need to state that it is or isn't a mistake, only point out the main possibilities under NPOV. The fact that it's an incorrect romanization, and one which uses a common mistake (reading the sokuon as "tsu" and vice-versa), is self-evident. My rewrite of the section (second rewrite; I did not write the original) notes both possibilities, without bias towards either side.

Doceirias: My stance isn't just to insist it's notable. Saying that would be dishonest. I supported my claim that it is notable with the following points, which up to this point have not even been acknowledged, let alone countered:

• "Tessaiga" is popular in usage: about 40-45% of English results on Google which do not appear to discuss the difference use Tessaiga rather than Tetsusaiga.
• Of all of the principal names, it is the only one which was not romanized correctly. This uniqueness makes it notable. Certainly not enough to have an article about it, but as certainly, its inherent notability should place at least a mention of the discrepancy on the page.
• Transliterating it as "Tetsusaiga" is easy to do as a mistake, so there is an undeniable and significant possibility of it being a mistake. Ignoring this and leaving it implied that "Tetsusaiga" was intentional violates NPOV and OR just as much as letting it be implied that it was a mistake (as the page title of "Tessaiga" did).

Sorry that I keep repeating myself, but for each of my specific points, if no one concedes to or tries to disprove it, or (as is the case) even acknowledge it, I have the right to bring it up again. --Raijinili (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Popular in usage: irrelevant, like any other alternate name. Difference between official and alternative names is worth noting in the lead, but not worth having a section for. This one is a really common argument, which is why people might come across as dismissive of it, or not bothering to refute it; the guidelines address it directly.
• The uniqueness does not make it notable. This is simply your opinion, as is this mine. Not an argument that is ever going to lead to anything productive.
• The nihongo template in the lead provides the correct romanization. Anything above and beyond that is what violates NPOV and OR. Taking out the information does not; making a big deal of out of it by giving it a section does. I agree that it was probably a mistake, but the only thing that proves the issue is notable is a source. If you do not have a source, you cannot add it to the article. This is just how Wikipedia works. Doceirias (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, long argument over a rather silly thing. Rule of thumb - past noting the correct romanization, any attempt to put an analysis of why what the English version is wrong is original research. Verifiability, not truth is central. If you don't have a reliable source that specifically mentions this information, then it's not going to be included. That and why the hell do we even have an article on the sword anyway? It should be merged into the relevant character article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and merge it now. A discussion was brought up in May, and everyone agreed on a merge. Hopefully this will also put an end to this disagreement. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The merge has been completed. A little messy? Perhaps, but the old article was basically a bunch of in-universe information. I didn't see the point in carrying over everything. If you have any comment, feel free to leave it at Talk:InuYasha (character). Please note that the merge had been discussed at Talk:InuYasha. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC.

Also, again, since I challenged that it was original research, point out specific portions of the paragraph which you are calling OR rather than just saying "OR". And again, the policy is not Reliable Sources, it's Verifiability, so stop demanding reliable sources unless you also claim that the actual proposed content is not verifiable. A review of Wikipedia policies can do us all a good turn.

I fail to see how adding content which itself conforms to NOR and NPOV would violate OR and NPOV (and you have not shown that the content itself is OR and POV). The NPOV policy is for weight towards opinions, not for weight towards the importance of different aspects of a thing.

And again, I did not say it was a mistake. Nor, in my personal opinion, do I believe that it was a mistake any more than I believe that it was intentional. I only claim there is a significant possibility that it was a mistake. --Raijinili (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For weight, see WP:UNDUE. You might also consider WP:CONSENSUS, as no one seems to be being agreeing to your arguments that it is somehow not OR to clam it is a mistake, intentional or otherwise, r that it is even relevant. Viz chose to use the spelling they did and that is that. Without actual, reliable sources discussing why, all we can do without violating WP:OR and WP:V is note the alternative romanization. Also, WP:RS is part of WP:V and not something you can just dismiss because none exist for what you want to say. Without a reliable source there is no verification, and the onus is on you, the claimaint, to verify your statements as they have been challenged by multiple editors and found lacking. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says exactly what I did. It's for opinions, not content itself. There is no NPOV policy concerning the importance of aspects of a thing, only viewpoints on the thing. NPOV applies if I say it was a mistake. NPOV does NOT apply if I add something which everyone else thinks is unimportant, unless it's about a viewpoint.

WP:CONSENSUS is not about the view of the majority versus the view of the minority. It's about coming together in agreement through discussion. As for no one agreeing with my arguments, when measured by how much people have disagreed with my stances, that is certainly true. However, as for people actually responding to my supporting points, that was disappointingly lacking.

Again, it is brought up that it is OR to claim it is a mistake. This has been irrelevant since before this section started, as I have already said before that I intended to change that to "taken" and I've rewritten the proposal to remove the claim that it was a mistake. Once again, I am being ignored.

And again, I must emphasize that if you claim what I gave up there is OR, then show me where. And again, the policy is Verifiability, not Reliable Sources. We use Reliable Sources to assist in showing Verifiability. Reliable Sources are not required past the point where content is already verifiable.

As for RS being something that I can ignore, yes, yes it is. RS is a guideline on what reliable sources are, and say nothing about how they're required.

And assuming that the sources don't exist is bad etiquette. In fact, I haven't bothered looking for them past the Viz website, since I stand by my view that the information is verifiable and thus requires no additional sources.

Sorry, but I will have to start copying word-for-word my responses if this continues. When a claim is made, and it's challenged, back it up rather than repeating it. If you keep repeating that I need a reliable source, point out which claim would need a reliable source, or else I can't counter your claim. Someone intentionally keeping you out of the debate by not giving you anything to directly respond to would be pretty annoying, wouldn't he/she?

Every time someone did point out a specific claim that they called OR or unverifiable, it was the claim that "Tetsusaiga" was unintentional, something which I early on admitted should not have been there and something which I've (as far as I can tell, unless someone else can point out to me evidence to the contrary) removed from the rewrite. This leads me to believe that those that make the claims of OR, rather than having a specific and actual claim in mind when making the accusations, are instead misreading what I wrote, and the only way I can pinpoint (or disprove the existence of) such misunderstandings, this argument isn't going to go very quickly.

--Raijinili (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to refute your complaints, but instead of listening or arguing the points, you just got mad at me. I'm not sure I can avoid language that will upset you when the basic point I'm trying to make is that your argument is based on a misunderstanding.

We (or at least I) am not saying the passage is OR because of any aspect of the language in it - you've already taken the word 'mistake' out, for instance. The language is not the problem. The notability of this change is.

This is the way Verifiability functions, in my experience - someone adds something without a source, and if the other editors find any reason to doubt it - whether for accuracy or notability - a source must be provided before the passage can remain. We are not assuming sources do not exist; we are saying you need to go find them to prove this passage is worth keeping.

If you demonstrate notability with a source - and I provided several suggestions for what kinds of sources would do that - you could absolutely add the section to the article. But without a source, the consensus here is that the passage is not important enough to keep in the article.

Please try to understand that none of this is personal, and that experienced editors see this kind of argument every day. Many of us were on your end of the argument when we first started editing Wikipedia, but the more time we spent here the more we understood why things work the way they do, even if it can occasionally seem a little backwards. Doceirias (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to refute your complaints, but instead of listening or arguing the points, you just got mad at me.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't get mad at the behavior which was not directly relevant to the debate. I only got mad because of my perception that most of what I wrote was being ignored.

I claim that I did, in fact argue against the points you brought up, and I'll back it up.

• [3], in which you bring up notability and reliable sources. I argued [4] that it was notable and that information did not require reliable sources if they were verifiable already.
• [5] You argue notability again, but you neither acknowledge nor refute my supporting arguments on notability. You argue it based on RS, and I respond (to another user) that we would not require a reliable source to point out whether it is or isn't a mistake if we don't pick a side.
• [6], in which you respond to my points on popularity, uniqueness, and whether it constitutes POV and OR not to have such a section. You respond to popularity by claiming guidelines, and I can't respond to this because you did not provide the specific guideline pages, so I would have had to go through every guideline page until I found a page which I didn't believe existed if I were to respond to that point. (This is why it's important to back up your points.) Regardless, I responded with new information, that I did not need to prove notability because notability is not a requirement for in-page content. I challenged your claim on whether it was OR and POV to provide information that was NOR and NPOV (since no one had directly refuted all my points on the section itself being NOR and NPOV) and responded that NPOV did not apply here, as there was no opinion being promoted.

You claim that I refused to listen or argue the points that you brought up. I reviewed them for everyone to see, and I don't see any points which were not argued. If you want to continue this line of discussion, then, you would have to bring up those points of yours which I didn't respond to, instead getting mad at you.

We (or at least I) am not saying the passage is OR because of any aspect of the language in it - you've already taken the word 'mistake' out, for instance. The language is not the problem. The notability of this change is.

"Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC." -Raijinili

• This is why I feel I am being ignored.

This is the way Verifiability functions, in my experience - someone adds something without a source, and if the other editors find any reason to doubt it - whether for accuracy or notability - a source must be provided before the passage can remain.

Notability is addressed directly above. Accuracy has been challenged (by calling NOR), but since no one will point out a specific claim that's inaccurate, I can't tell which part is supposed to be inaccurate.

We are not assuming sources do not exist

Only Collectonian did, which is who I was responding to. "Also, WP:RS is part of WP:V and not something you can just dismiss because none exist for what you want to say."

Please try to understand that none of this is personal, and that experienced editors see this kind of argument every day.

You shouldn't call someone inexperienced based on their edit history, and especially not based on their stances, in a debate. It's bad form. Besides, I joined Wikipedia before you did :P --Raijinili (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't experienced, I said we were experienced. The discussion here is getting rather convoluted, so forgive me if I don't try and refute each of your points.

The passage you wish to add is not, in my opinion, notable. The arguments you have made for the notability of it do not convince me. A source like the ones I suggested would convince me, and I recommend trying to find one. Otherwise, consensus is probably going to remain against you.

We can argue the finer points of policy some other time, and with the article merged, the entire discussion is sort of a moot point. I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this. Doceirias (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By saying that I only believe what I do because you're more experienced is calling me inexperienced. I quote, "Many of us were on your end of the argument when we first started editing Wikipedia," which makes that implication. Analogously, I could say that the reason why you're not making yourself clear to me is because of <insert claim about your knowledge, logical abilities, biases, intelligence, affiliations with various cabals here> and that would be something which you might take offense to if you believe that the claim is false. This isn't good if we want to have a constructive argument about the topic.

You can't use "convoluted" to ignore points. You can use it to stop lines of discussion, but that's to keep things on-topic, rather than to dismiss specific points of argument against a stance you will continue to argue against. Reasoned debate can't work if people simply ignored points, and their opponents are not told precisely why each specific point is not being responded to.

Notability: "Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC." This is the third time I've posted this. Notability does not restrict content, only what pages may exist.

Consensus: Consensus is reached in agreement, not in majority. Everyone disagreeing with me means nothing to me if I can respond to all of their points and they can't respond to mine.

Moot point: Oh, but this hasn't been about whether or not to add the section in since User:WhisperToMe first reverted me. This is about our understanding of policy. One of us is probably wrong, and I intend to continue until we reach an agreement, so that we have consensus. I would not be happy if you quit on me now (though I would certainly understand if you don't put priority into arguments about policy that won't immediately affect anything). After all, you've made personal accusations about my debate tactics, and I expect you to either back them up so that I can either respond or concede, or admit that I responded to each of your points relevantly. I believe, for myself, that a point should not be dropped, but either countered or conceded, so I take your accusation that I ignored a point very seriously. --Raijinili (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. from WP:OR. It's been challenged. Therefore we need a reference. The section should not be there and consists of original research because we do not know why that name, or any names really, are translated. The Tetsusaiga one for example could have been: a request, a mistake, an editor who thought it was a mistake, a translator/editor who liked it better than the original, etc. And I believe that the name had always been written in kanji, or it appears that way in the template. Doesn't that mean they could have literally translated that instead of the hiragana? Unless it was written in furigana on the side, but I'm not sure if that would help considering it's all small. Fact is, we cannot just assume how something came to be that way without a reliable source. We can assume that a translation mistake was why something's name was altered, but in reality it could be something else. That is why we only note the real name in the template, or say something along the lines of "--- in the Japanese version". Because we just don't know. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are seriously misinterpreting almost every policy you cite, and guilty of Wikilawyering - ignoring the spirit of the policies or guidelines in favor of a literal interpretation. Your claims that notability requirements only apply to the article as a whole rather than sections of this is a textbook case of Wikilawyering. Of course it applies to individual sections; this is how we decide what sections to include.

You refuse to provide any sources backing up your claims of notability; you insist that consensus must be unanimous when it never will be and never has been. Consensus is achieved by one side of an argument giving, and that is usually the side with no support whatsoever.

Additionally, I did not make any personal accusations. You have consistently failed to assume good faith, and I should have stopped wasting my time on you the moment you stalked me to my user page to chastise me for some insult I certainly never intended. Making arguments personal when they were never meant to be is a good way to prevent that argument from ever becoming a productive discussion. Doceirias (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WhiteArcticWolf:

Challenges: If you challenge me on the claims themselves, then sure, I'll try to provide sources for the claims. But challenging on notability requires sources on notability, and challenges on original research requires sources that prove something is not original (otherwise I could provide a source to prove, say, something is NOR when you ask me to show it's notable, and that could fail the requirement of "significant coverage). The section was challenged on notability, verifiability, and NOR (I might have missed some, but these are the important ones). However, no one addressed directly my claim of WP:N not applying to in-page content until just above, and verifiability and NOR is hard to provide sources against if I don't know which claim is being challenged.

Furigana: I don't know about the original manga. Inuyasha has fanservice, so it might not have furigana for young people. I already posted a link to the anime usage which was brought up in an earlier discussion, but I've found two pages which discuss the alternative possibility that the name in the manga was originally Tetsusaiga. While the sources are not reliable enough for the encyclopedia, and one might be based off the other, they do bring up a notable possibility, if true, and I'm inclined to believe that the new information has a significant chance of being true since it's something which most anime fans with a bias towards the original Japanese works would not believe. So I will concede that the part about Tessaiga being the original Japanese and my claim that I gave all significant possibilities to be very doubtful, since two new possibilities were brought to my attention (your "maybe there was no original furigana to misread" being the other).

Doceirias:

Content notability: Actually, my claim that notability doesn't apply to content is one of the furthest things from Wikilawyering that I've done here (try the overly-precise tone, if you want). WP:NNC makes it clear that notability doesn't apply to content.

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people).

The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by policies such as No original research and Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.

And once on top: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

A big point against me is that in that same section on notability and content (in the next paragraph), it is stated explicitly that "Undue weight... applies to factual content and not just viewpoints," which directly contradicts my earlier statement that UNDUE only applies to viewpoints. That paragraph predates our discussion, so it was my fault for missing that. In fact, WP:UNDUE, which I was directed to, has the third paragraph stating the same thing, so I'll admit I was probably hasty (due to bias towards my own side) when reviewing the section.

How it's relevant here and now is made a little difficult to determine by the merge. The weight of the name in the notability of the sword is complicated by the fact that the sword isn't notable after all (because, on the other hand, it's hard to argue that the attacks of the sword add more to its notability than a possible error in its name which would've been rather unique in terms of faithfully-translated names). Since I no longer have solid ground to stand on here, I'll concede the point.

Consensus: I don't claim that consensus requires total agreement. You're misunderstanding my objection. Consensus simply isn't complete until all relevant concerns are addressed. I don't believe that I am right simply because I view my own debate methods as superior, or because it's what I currently believe, so I am actively attempting to be convinced as well as convincing. I haven't tried editing back in the paragraph, despite the rewrite, for various reasons, one of them being that everyone else was against me. But why should I stop trying to reach consensus with them? Dismissing someone's stance because it's unpopular will understandably not result in them being very happy about it.

Good Faith: It's not your good faith or your intentions that I doubt. I pointed out what I saw as flaws in your behavior for future reference, because I believed that you honestly don't see them the same way and that they would cause problems with future editors. If you can convince me that they're not flaws, then I will also have learned from the experience. I don't expect everyone to debate as pedantically and thoroughly as I do, but I believe that it would prevent the discussion from stalling, so why shouldn't I convince them to do so? I don't believe that you're trying to harm Wikipedia, nor do I believe you're trying to push a POV. I only think that you can be more clear than you are on this page, and less aggressive. If we're at the point where you can't agree with me that, by saying that your stance came about because of your experience, you're implying that I'm less experienced, then there's no point in continuing that line of discussion, since either you're being defensive by now or I'm being too dense.

However, I concede that my tone has been too "cold" and detached. Such as by using words like "however" instead of words like "but", which reeks of elitism and arrogance. This is likely due to me being defensive about my edit, and probably isn't something I can stop for the current discussion.

Stalking: I went to your user page with a concern that was not, at the time, directly relevant to the discussion, and so I shouldn't put it on this page. Bringing up a personal point in a user's talk page is exactly the point of the user talk page. This shouldn't be considered stalking, whatever else it may be.

Personal accusations: Not so much accusations (I guess I shouldn't expect everyone to take "Your debate tactics are lacking in rigor!" as an offensive accusation) as comments which imply negative things about the opponent, such as implications about their ignorance of well-known policy and their experience, when the opponent probably doesn't see themselves that way and thus need convincing (in the form of concrete references to policy and to comments which show their inexperience). Statements about the experience of users influencing their biases, however, should not be made at all during a debate, since it carries the implication that you're right while not really advancing the argument. Compare to if I had this statement at the end of every one of my posts: "I guess the discussion is over now." The point is, these are bad in debates, rather than I'm taking personal offense at them. I've already stated that I'm more personally offended at (what I see as) people ignoring (what I see as) important parts of my posts than at any comments which I thought were too personal. The personal criticisms were, again, for your future reference.

Personal comments: You're right. I forgot that, during a debate which isn't already about the opponents, nearly any personal criticisms of your opponents are inappropriate, as the criticisms would be suspected of trying to get a point up, make things too personal, be ignored as biased, make the opponents defensive, and possibly bring things off-topic (as they are now). I've made this mistake before and recognized this flaw in myself before, as well as warned others against making it. I'm sorry.

Productive discussion: On the flip side, you didn't support some of your claims on policy with policy pages. The whole point of reliable sources is fact-checking, so that others can verify that challenged information is as it's cited. Why shouldn't the same idea apply to an argument?

Well, in the hopes of peace after this is over, I will say that you kept your calm pretty well in a long discussion, which I do admire, and that you have admitted in the argument points which were based off opinion, which is much more than the vast majority of my past opponents have done (on and off Wikipedia).

Oh, and I agree to consensus on the basis of no grounds to argue about NPOV for the existence of the section, and no verifiability for the specific point of "sole significant possibilities" (which would make it an OR thing).

On policy, I admit to anything that I've already conceded above, as well as that verifiability in the form of sources is needed for listing possibilities to prevent OR. I hold that challenges to claims in a debate should be addressed clearly, that WP:N explicitly does not apply to content within the page (but WP:UNDUE applies to the notability granted by content towards notability of the subject, even if the content is not required to be notable in itself), that reliable sources for challenged content should be demanded only as relevant to the challenge (for example, challenges towards notability should not be demanding sources for fact-checking of the content itself, though a challenge to the accuracy of the claims can be made separately), and that consensus should be a goal, not an excuse for dismissing a viewpoint which has unaddressed relevant objections. However, since the proposed content fails two of the three core policies, it's failed. --Raijinili (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent to start a new thread) Speaking as an uninvolved party, Raijinili, you haven't been very convincing. Dorecias is right that without a reliable source to specifically back the challenged statement that it's a mistake, we can't say that it is one. The statement the noting the Japanese spelling is sufficient is also right -- either with what's in the nihongo template or, given this gets attention, using a brief phrase afterwards. Anything more would be, as far as I'm concerned, undue weight. (You are right that WP:N does explicitly say that notability doesn't limit content of the article, just the article itself, but your tendentious argumentation is, if anything, obscuring your point.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There had been no "challenged statement that it's a mistake" for a while. Third post in this thread rewrote it so that it only left possibilities: it may or may not have been a mistake. I've made this point several times. I don't have to provide sources for a challenged statement if I choose to remove it.

Whether it's sufficient: I've made my arguments about the notability of the claims of the section, which were mostly ignored when people restated that it wasn't notable.

WP:UNDUE says to give weight to parts of the article based on how much each part adds to the article topic's notability. This means that we would have to measure whether the amount of notability granted to Tetsusaiga by its name is balanced against the amount of notability granted by the sword's attacks (in a real-world context, not within the work of fiction). At the former state of the article, the attacks and forms were at least ten times larger than the section I wanted to put in. This makes the UNDUE question: "Are Tetsusaiga's attacks and forms ten times more important in making Tetsusaiga notable in our world than a possible name change?" For this, I direct you to my notability arguments above: Uniqueness, popularity in usage, and decent possibility of it being a mistake. --Raijinili (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ore wa Mita

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ore wa Mita#Article Name to determine if the article should be renamed to I Saw It per its English release name. Project input appreciated. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slayers#More_specific_articles_.28and_less.2C_sometimes.29_.2F_WHAT_TO_DO_according_to_me

Thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: discussion is for the suggestion that Slayers have articles created for every individual media type, including the novels, the manga, and the anime, as well as the creation of a list of minor characters and a list of dieties (there is no main character list at this time) and the creation of articles for the mangaka and illustrators of the series. Also noted the {{Slayers}} template is in need of an overhaul. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As it was me who brought this to your attention, please don't gon on a delete/merge rampage :) I didn't write this stuff, but I'm working on it right now (may take time - I did na lot of cleanup already, it was in a really bad shape). Just don't massacre it :) and just cleanup, or expand what you think should be. Thanks!

I'll do the list of deities to keep this in the category of "fictional deities". How about cutting List of Slayers episodes (all series altogether) from the List of Slayers media stuff? (I think List of Slayers media should be re-integrated back into Slayers, too.) What do you think about an article about magic (magic types, spells)? It was originally as an unexsiting article in the template and I thought it would be a good idea. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, a list of deities is unnecessary and not an appropriate or necessary split. A single character list is all that is needed. An article about magic would be highly likely to fail all Wikipedia guidelines. A "deletion/merge rampage" is necessary to clean up some of the the mess the Slayers articles are in. It is still in really bad shape and needs a lot of work. Fixing the articles to bring them up in quality is not a "massacre." Please see WP:MOS-AM and look at some our GA and B series articles to see properly formatted articles and subarticles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying my best (I just made a single article out of 3 - hardly splitting), but what about this list of episodes? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created it and am working on it now. I've started discussions for some suggested merges at Talk:Slayers#Merge discussion. As no one supported you creating a deities list, it was not appropriate for you to go ahead and do it anyway. I've moved it to List of Slayers characters. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayers authors articles requested

Rui Araizumi (illustrations in novels and artbooks) and Shoko Yoshinaka & Tommy Ohtsuka (mangakas). Some others too, but these are these who I knew before I came here to check, so 'd like them (at least for now). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure

I'm assuming the consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon#Franchise type will also apply for the manga-related articles mentioned here? There are probably others with similar hatnotes, I'd like to know if I can change those too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Original English-language manga proposed merged

It has been proposed that the Original English-language manga be merged into graphic novel to address the issues of bias in the name and limiting the issue to a specific language. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Original English-language manga#Merge into Comic Books or Graphic Novels -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Does this project have a list of web sites that are considered reliable sources? Does Anime News Network qualify as a reliable source? --Kraftlos (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer to both questions may be found at WP:ANIME#Reference links. We also have some lists of printed resources you can use at WP:ANIME/R and WP:ANIME/M. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Robotech articles

a bunch of Robotech articles were recently prodded. I've partially merged some of the character articles into List of Robotech characters and removed the prods for those, for someone else to complete the merge.

The major story arc Malcontent Uprisings is still prodded, as are SDF-4 Izumo, Garfish class cruiser (Robotech), Pioneer Expedition.

I deprodded VF-1 Valkyrie because it's the basis of a Transformers character and a major toyline.

These articles need cleanup and referencing. 70.55.84.50 (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How much of that actually falls under this project? Robotech II and Shadow Chronicles are the animated/novel versions of Original English-language manga, which is explicitly NOT manga. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)