Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:Fiction notice

Help for notability claims

Every week, the New York Times publishes a manga best seller list, seen here. Being on that list can help a manga reach its notability requirements. It may be worth it to see if someone can regularly check the list and then add a sourced statement about it in the appropriate article. You can see an example of that here (see the last paragraph). I don't know that I will be able to check every week, so I am posting it here so more than one person can keep an eye on it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the NYT bestseller list helps a manga series's notability as that is not one of the criteria listed at WP:BK. And adding "bestseller" status to WP:BK has been rejected multiple times in the past. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A best seller is much more likely to have multiple reviews simply due to the fact that it's selling really well. That means more people notice it, and more people are likely to write articles about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ALso, the NYT sometimes does reviews of manga as well, and those will be linked from entries on the lists. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its the same reason why raw sales numbers aren't listed. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it notable. Part of that falls into recentism. With a few exceptions, something new is always going to sell more than it will a few months from now. The page is still useful for sales data of notable manga though.陣内_Jinnai 06:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Still useful though. I've done what I can to get the NYT bestseller list bumped up in priority in my CSE; there is no static URL, unfortunately, to target for the latest results. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 16 May 2010 (GMT)

Hentai article cleanup/improvement drive

Anyone willing to get "yukky"? I decided to start a much needed cleanup of the hentai articles starting with List of hentai anime. I've removed and delinked all of the red links there and started going through the remainder searching for sources. I've finished the A's and here are the potential AfD candidates if no other sources are found.

• Adventure Kid (1 Mania review)
• Ai Shimai AKA Immoral Sisters (4 Mania reviews, on for each episode and the box set) + French Animeland Special issue #9 Hentai
• Ail Maniax (No sources found, Prodded)
• Akiba Girls (2 Mania and 1 THEM reviews)
• Alien from the Darkness (1 Mania and 1 THEM reviews)
• Anejiru (No sources found, Prodded)
• Angel Blade (5 Mania reviews, one for each episode)
• Angels in the Court (1 Mania and 1 ANN review)
• Angel of Darkness (2 Mania reviews, one for each volume)
• Another Lady Innocent (1 Mania and 1 THEM reviews) + French Animeland Special issue #9 Hentai

I've attempted to redirect Kitty Media to its parent article at Media Blasters because it is nothing but a list of red linked titles. —Farix (t | c) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Angel of Darkness is pretty much a shoe in for being notable. Its discussed in Anime Encyclopedia, Anime Explosion!, The Complete Anime Guide, as well as several other books (both English and non-English). There is also the live action series, which likely has reviews. It's main issue is that almost all sources are offline due to its age. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So two reviews is no longer good enough? When did that happen? And some of these have more than that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think the ones with reviews from two sites (e.g. Mania.com and THEM Anime) would be notable. I'm not sure about ones with two reviews from a single source. I would volunteer to look for sources for them, except that I think TheFarix has already looked at the three sites that I know of that are reliable sources and have reviews of hentai (Mania.com, THEM Anime, and ANN (for older titles, since they stopped reviewing hentai)). Calathan (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep those with coverages from at least 2 different sources. I pointed to the two series in the list covered by the Special Hentai issue of the French Animeland. Note that Animeland & others French Anime/Manga websites don't do hentai review in a current basis. --KrebMarkt 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hentaijump.net 211.30.12.191 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It unquestionably fails WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 13:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? The reviewer for HentaiJump, Mike Toole, also does reviews for AnimeJump, which has been considered a reliable source for quite some time. --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Toole also just got a regular column on Anime News Network starting this week, if that adds to his credibility. Calathan (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He also apparently reviews anime for SCI FI Magazine and SCI FI Wire [1] and is a contributor to Otaku USA (not sure how to find a list of everything he has written for Otaku USA, but here is one thing he wrote [2]). I would think that would be enough to qualify him as a generally reliable source similar to the other people listed at WP:ANIME/RS#Individuals, some of whom are listed there specifically because they are contributors to Otaku USA. Calathan (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? It seems like AnimeJump is considered a reliable source based on the discussions linked above, but it looks like AnmaFinotera removed it from the reliable source page saying that she didn't think it would hold up in a FA review. However, Serial Experiments Lain was promoted to FA with it as a source, and it wasn't rejected in the review that demoted it from FA. AnmaFinotera, does the fact that you didn't include it in the sources you listed as questionable in that FAR mean that you now agree that it is a reliable source, or do you still have an objection to it? Personally, I'm of the opinion that Mike Toole is a reliable source due to his work for ANN/Otaku USA/SyFy, and that AnimeJump should be considered a reliable source by extension (since it his site) if it isn't otherwise considered reliable. And I would say HentaiJump (which was also his site) would be considered a reliable source for the same reason. Or perhaps only Mike Toole's reviews for AnimeJump and HentaiJump should be considered reliable, but other reviews by other reviewers shouldn't? Calathan (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As link suggester, I think both Anime Jump and Hentai Jump are RSes. Just dropping in to give my opnion. I will be busy until the beginning of November. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Milk Junkies AFD

Anyone care to weigh in on this? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Viz restructuring

[3] They say they aren't going to cut any series, hopefully that's true... This has also generated quite a bit of notice in various RSes, refer a Google search for "viz restructuring". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

CMX closing

More important is CMX closing in July [4]. At least Viz is still alive. Anyone up to archive CMX catalog? --KrebMarkt 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecchi - Etchi

Seems a very minor "move and redirect" scuffle occurred at Ecchi with one user pushing for the article to have 'Etchi' as being the main and primary focus. They referenced a Japanese-English dictionary as their source, did not attempt to enter the previous talk about why the move was made on the discussion page instead saying that "anime-lovers" need to use "serious dictionaries" for the proper formulations. After the page was protected they did a content change on the page which I reverted. I also see the page doesn't have any references for the term Ecchi though on the talk page quite a few were mentioned in passing. Can anyone provide references for it? I don't own any publications of the sort that address ecchi, though I am looking back on my old issues of Newtype USA looking for articles that use the word or bring it up as a topic. I don't think we can use the ANN lexicon can we? Fox816 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45#Etchi/Ecchi, from mid-last month. It's the exact same guy, too (note that he's also moved the Polish version of the article; I haven't checked any other language versions). At this point, I'd say it's safe to revert and ignore; I've gone ahead and made the move protection indefinite. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ecchi", while using a nonstandard romanization, is (by far) the most common romanization of that word. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Fox816 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecchi

The correct pronunciation and romanisation of the term has come under fire again by the same user as before. Opinions wlecomed.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Magical girl vs magical-girl

An editor at Talk:Magical girl is insisting that the term should always be hyphenated when used as an adjective. —Farix (t | c) 11:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Connection issues

Just to let everyone know, since last Wednesday, I've been having some serious connection issues with my cable internet. This is one of the reasons I haven't been that active during the last few days. I've already contacted my cable company, but we still don't know if the problem is with the system or if my cable modem is going bad. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My situation is better than your but my bandwidth dropped from 600-700 KBps to 130-150 KBps since a week ago. ISP woes. --KrebMarkt 12:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

List of US anime simulcasts

I just found this article, and I'm not really sure what to do with it. I considered prodding it based on WP:N, but I'd like the opinion of the project.--十八 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia alternatives?

I'm interested in writing anime & manga-related articles, but it may not always be easily apparent whether the articles I am interested in are acceptable to the Wikipedia policies for inclusion. Of course there is nothing wrong with the fact that Wikipedia is not for everything that I happen to be interested in writing about, but does anyone know of alternative wikis more dedicated to anime & manga? Such a site my be able to deliver more content and less tension and conflict between users if like-mined folks meet up. Any advice? --Bxj (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the unintentional (I'm sure) jab at editors here, there are multiple anime/manga Wikia sites. Animepedia seems to be a likely candidate, doing a quick search there.[5] Of course, you could always just start your own site. Hosting is cheap and the mediawiki software is free, then you don't have to worry about any rules, or conflict (as you can just block anyone you disagree with). Thing to keep in mind with Wikipedia (and even Wikia) is that when you have people collaborating, there will be tension and conflict. It's how the people involved respond to them that makes it a good or bad experience. Wikia has just as much drama as Wikipedia at times, including people banning their proclaimed "enemies" from Wikipedia just because they can. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link suggestion. Just to clarify, I've meant to make no jabs and I hold no ill-will at the editors. I recognize that Wikipedia, as an Encyclopedia, naturally needs to draw boundaries somewhere for their inclusion criteria. There is nothing unreasonable or wrong with that. --Bxj (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, are you referring to A Nobody? He banned people who had previously harassed him on Wikipedia and on various Wikia. And you don't just block everyone you disagree with, there links to various deleted post proving he had faced harassment before doing that. And no reason to bring that in here, when it had nothing to do with any question. Bxj, please look at the link [6] to see a list of every Anime and Manga Wikia, and its current state. That should help you greatly. People are usually very friendly on the Wikias, you not likely to encounter any drama at all. Dream Focus 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The poster specifically mentioned wanting less "tension and conflict" so I felt it appropriate to note that he would find that anywhere, including Wikia. I did not mention any specific names, you are the one who brought that here and named a specific user name. There have been quite a few instances of folks doing that over there after being in a dispute here or other places, as there is no real central control over most individual Wikias. I've also seen plenty of instances of unfriendliness, drama, etc. Many of the same folks who edit here, edit there, as do many users who were banned here. It has fewer rules, and far less recourse/help if you do experience conflicts. It is just as ripe for drama as any other forum or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Wikia as well. Just to clarify, though, the Animanga Wikia is actually a hub wiki linking out to more specialized Wikias, and as such only takes articles on series or franchises when there is a Wikia devoted to that series/franchise. Personally, much of my recent spare time has been going into work at the Yu-Gi_Oh! Wikia... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Boys Over Flowers

This article (and really series of articles) is in massive need of attention. The main article was in really bad shape, and still is. I did a quick, rough clean up for formatting and removing some OR, but it has a ton of excessive plot, fan OR/gushing, etc.[7] It is also lacking references and seems to be split up way too much in terms of the various adaptations (many of which aren't particularly notable), while lacking in a proper episode and character list. It has few references either, despite the series being one with quite a bit of coverage[8] due to its popularity and likely the controversial nature of the story. Could be a good project for a couple of interested editors, or at least a good clean up project if someone has the time. Anyone want to take this one? I hated the thing myself (heroine was an idiot, IMHO), so not particularly desiring to do much more than what I've done so far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I think the biggest issue is the character list which has too much detail and the obvious lack of reception/impact sections.陣内_Jinnai 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there is also a lot of OR in the summaries and the plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RS check

Over at WP:VN#encubed. I've been having a discussion there and the site is borderline case so if someone can come over and check it.陣内_Jinnai 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow external links to Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia?

The Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia is one of the biggest wikis on Wikia with over 40,000 articles, as well as one of the most active wikis there with over 200 monthly contributers. It has a substantial history of stability, and I feel it satisfies WP:ELNO #12 for an open wiki that can be linked. Any thoughts on this? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems little different from Wookieepedia, which is linked all the place. I don't see any reason to hold the YGH! wikia to a higher standard. --Gwern (contribs) 20:55 28 May 2010 (GMT)

It also has to meet other ELNO guidelines. such as if it's a fan site or so.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.' --Gwern (contribs) 21:36 28 May 2010 (GMT)

What point are you trying to make with that rule?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That Dinoguy is perfectly aware of your point, foresaw it, knows the relevant exception, and has already made a good faith effort to demonstrate that that wikia falls under the exception. --Gwern (contribs) 22:38 28 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm saying that there are other points beside #12 to consider, such as #3, #10, #11, and sometimes even #1 can be considered valuable (though i don't think #1 affects this one). let's not assume anything unless mentioned in his comment. He only was talking about WP: ELNO#12. but as previous comments before, there is more than jsut WP:ELNO#12 that stops wikia to coming in wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't see how #3 is relevant (wikias are exactly as vulnerable to malicious uploads or evil content as we are), nor #10, nor #11 since wikis are addressed specifically. (And #1 is just silly; of course a Yu-Gi-Oh wikia can provide more content than our straitened FAs ever could. In many respects, the wikias beat our article under any consideration - which has more real-world or reception information, Luke Skywalker or wookieepedia:Luke Skywalker#Behind the scenes?) --Gwern (contribs) 00:06 29 May 2010 (GMT)

ELNO #3 addresses websites which intentionally host malicious or illegal content. MediaWiki is hardened against intentional or malicious attempts to host malicious material, and I have yet to encounter anything which would be illegal on the YGO Wikia. #10 excludes open wikis by its very nature. #11 explicitly states that it is extremely limited, and also excludes open wikis by definition. And #1 is pointless to bring up; Wikipedia could not support a few hundred properly sourced articles about Yu-Gi-Oh!, much less the 40,000 and growing that are on the YGO Wikia. I also took this opportunity to review all other points of ELNO, and none of them apply at all to the YGO Wikia. As one final point, I believe it would be to our benefit to allow external links to the YGO Wikia; our own coverage of the franchise is dismally substandard, and linking to Wikia would, I feel, encourage contributors to improve our own articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, it should be allowed. There are 40,534 articles on this wiki. Dream Focus 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I posted a request for comments from individuals outside the project at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to the request at WP:ELN. I first have three thoughts about editors' interpretation of the guideline:

1. The fact that open wikis are directly addressed in ELNO #12 does not exempt them from complying with ELNO 10 or 11. Relevantly, it is entirely possible for a website to be both an open wiki and a fansite.
2. ELNO #3 is not restricted to intentional malware hosts. If the site contains malware, we don't want to link it, full stop. Sites containing malware should be reported to WP:BLACKLIST.
3. ELNO #11 provides an extremely limited exception to the widespread ban on blogs, etc. It does not intend the ban on blogs, etc., to be applied sparingly. You need to read this as "Blogs, etc. are banned (but we might make an occasional exception for an expert)", not "Except in limited cases, blogs, etc. are okay."

As for the links: I think that carefully selected links to the best and most relevant wikia pages will, on balance, likely be acceptable to the community in a reasonable proportion of articles. Although it's a fansite, it provides a unique resource (far more information than Wikipedia should contain), and the information is generally encyclopedic instead of promotional.

However, linking to bad/unfinished/uninformative pages at the wikia site, or systematically spamming the link into every possible article, is inappropriate and will be opposed by the community. ELNO is not ELNEVER -- you are allowed to make exceptions -- but it's also not "ELwhateverYouWant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

#3 is for intential malware sites or sites that do not clean up maleware. A lot of sites have ads that may contain malicious code; we don't ban them if they happen to have 1 new ad that pops up with that. If they have a history of it and of not removing them, that's another issue.

#12 does exempt it from #10 and #11 unless they are linked else it would be listed with them. The one exception is a wiki that is designed with the primary intention of being a social networking site or fansite. A wiki that is designed to be for reference material akin to an enclyopedia is not seen as a general fansite if it is a open wiki that also meets #11. Attempts to push it on there are just attempts to try and elaywer any wiki from ever appearing as and basically negatiing that exception.

The only thing the yugioh wiki may have issues with would be WP:ELNEVER #1.陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the YGO Wikia has any problems with ELNEVER #1; while it is true that they host a large number of copyrighted content (similar to most other entertainment Wikias), they do not knowingly host or link to full chapters of the manga or episodes of the anime; the closest they come to violating copyright at all is linking to YouTube videos of LittleKuribo's Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (and, based on what I've read, 4Kids has seen the videos and actually doesn't have a problem with their existence). In addition, as a member of the Wikia ACG, they also follow wikia:animepedia:Fair use policy (in name if nothing else; considering the 35,000+ fair-use images, it would take a considerable amount of time to add a specific fair use rationale to every image for every use 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1. This is true, although where ELNO 10 is concerned, wikis are not inherently a social networking platform, regardless of the fact that they can be used as such - this is where I was coming from with my comment. I simply misunderstood #11; my comment about it being very limited should therefore be ignored. I'm not sure about the fansite aspect, since it isn't very clear when exceptions can be made, although I would argue that this case is very similar to the case to allow linking to Wookieepedia, which has been allowed for several years now (a comparison Gwern drew in his first post above).
2. This is another one I misunderstood, then. However, as I pointed out above, it is very difficult (if not impossible) for an attacker without server access or access to an administrator account to successfully plant actively malicious code of any type on a MediaWiki installation (assuming the webmaster hasn't done anything stupid with the wiki's configuration, like enabling uploads of executable or zipped files); if it was possible, it certainly would have already been discovered and an exploit attempted here on the English Wikipedia.
3. I already addressed this in point 1.

And of course, no one here is arguing for simply spamming a link on every page possible here. The only one I personally would add would be on Yu-Gi-Oh! itself, and possibly a link to the Main Page in the YGO navbox (but only if I could find a precedent for such a link in other navboxes). Any others I would not feel comfortable adding due to a conflict of interest. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Translate This Page?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/VISITOR

I think this needs a page on the English Wikipedia.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The first feature length 3D CG anime? Might be some grounds for that. Nobody seems to have actually remembered the work itself, though. Doceirias (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PNT陣内_Jinnai 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs significant coverage in reliable sources, first, and it doesn't look like even ANN has a listing for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's listed in The Anime Encyclopedia, and, if it's notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia, it's notable enough for the English Wikipedia.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Link? I couldn't find it, and no, its being on the JA Wikipedia is irrelevant. The English Wikipedia has notability guidelines, most others not so much.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The links on the Japanese Wikipedia are notable sources. Please stop with this notability nonsense. Obviously, the anime is notable enough to have an article. It was broadcast on WOWOW, for Christ's sake.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It has two links. That doesn't make it notable. Nor does where it was broadcast. You may think it is "nonsense" but it is how this Wikipedia work. Article topics must be notable, and the film must meet WP:NF and WP:N before it has an article, or it will just get deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

English sources may be hard to come by. I looked in my CSE under a variety of search terms, and turned up pretty much zilch. Strange too - Western sources are usually fairly interested in 3D tech (look at how much coverage the Final Fantasy movie got). Does anyone have a paper copy of The anime encyclopedia? It seems to be mentioned on page 218 & 707. --Gwern (contribs) 17:06 29 May 2010 (GMT)

I have both editions. Which one are those page numbers for, the 2nd? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Whichever one Google Books is using, which is probably the 2nd. (But the index ought to list it.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:40 29 May 2010 (GMT)

It's actually mentioned several times in the book; it even has its own picture.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Books is using the 2nd edition, yeah. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay...it is mentioned in passing in several summaries (he likes to compare different works). Its actual entry is on 707-708, indicates that it was a 3 episode TV series/special that was intended for video but aired on WOW later and then repackaged as a feature length film. The entry is a short paragraph giving the plot summary, what I just said, and states that it was entirely computer animated. It does not confirm the claim from the JA Wikipedia that it was "first feature length 3D CG anime", nor does he even state that it was 3D at all. He also gives no actual review or commentary on it. Not really much at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhh... did you even READ it? He clearly states that:

1. It has computer animation that almost resembles "Supermarionation".

2. That it was the first feature-length anime project.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, it said ALMOST RESEMBLES not is "Supermarionation", and he never says anything about it being the first feature-length anime project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemon Angel

Could someone help me expand this page? For some reason, it originally redirected to Creamy Mami.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, is it notable? Seems better handled as part of Cream Lemon, which it is part of, so fixed the redirect to go there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, it is a notable anime based on a notable band. Leave it alone.-66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The usual practice is to have the original work & any adaptationq covered in the same article. So instead of 2 moving targets we have just one. What does an article dedicated to an anime adaptation can do that can not done within Cream Lemon? --KrebMarkt 19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an altogether very different work, with not much in common with Cream Lemon other than name.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

According to your own edit, it is an adaptation of Cream Lemon[9] - if it isn't, then there is no need for an article at all without actual demonstrable notability. You may not like it or may disagree, but at THIS Wikipedia it is what determines if a topic or work has an article, not your personal preference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, someone who doesn't even know what the show is is trying to tell ME (who actually DOES know what the show is) about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't seem to decide what it is about either. You made an edit claiming it was, now you are claiming it isn't related at all except for the name? Perhaps if you would be more truthful, others could respond better. Meanwhile, since ANN says it is part of Lemon Angel Project, the link now goes there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's RELATED TO both Cream Lemon and Lemon Angel Project.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridicules. Where are the sources making any such claim? —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now he is claiming it is the name of some band and is edit warring with multiple editors over it. I've reported the IP to be reblocked yet again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.idollica.com/lemon_angel/lemon_angel.html

http://www.songpresent.com/80s-g03.html

AND Lemon Angel has articles on the French and Japanese Wikipedias.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those links are reliable sources, and having articles on other language Wikipedias has not meaning as they may have different inclusion criteria than the English language Wikipedia. If the article is about the band, then it is a clear A7 speedy deletion. —Farix (t | c) 22:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The band has their own anime (two of them, to be exact). In fact, Lemon Angel Project is based on the real-life band Lemon Angel.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the idol group notable. —Farix (t | c) 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemon Angel Project is "notable", no? Look in The Anime Encyclopedia. Look on MyAnimeList.net. They'll all tell you the same thing.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)