Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:Fiction notice

Pending mass-deletion spree?

I've just deprodded 15 or so articles prodded by TheFairix. Are you planning a mass TTN-style deletion spree? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perform some checks before throwing such accusations. --KrebMarkt 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

TheFarix did not prod them... please check your facts. In any case, it would help much more if you add an edit summary stating why you are contesting the prod. G.A.S^talk 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Malkinann (talk · contribs) was the one who prodded them. I reviewed them and deprodded a few that either need more research (i.e. they had European publications) or I could find enough reliable sources to establish notability. The rest I let stand. I would recommend that you do not deprod an article unless you have good reason to believe that there are enough reliable sources for the subject to pass either WP:BK or WP:NOTE. Otherwise, mass deprodding of good nominations using the assumption of bad faith is disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue just deprodding and and all articles prodded under the anime/manga project helm? That seems to be the bulk of your editing besides project tagging pages? Personally, I think at this point it is getting more than a little disruptive as you've been at this for months, if not longer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Collective laundry?

Thanks, to the Ip action it's even harder to keep track on everything

• GE – Good Ending Deprodded No rational
• Cage of Eden Deprodded No rational
• Ahiru no Sora Deprodded No rational
• Bee-be-beat it! Deprodded No rational
• 3.3.7 Byooshi!! Deprodded No rational
• Shibao Deprodded No rational
• Last Inning Deprodded No rational

Thanks for your participation to the laundry updated --KrebMarkt 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deprodded:

• A Town Where You Live, "Already been prodded once. Does not qualify for a second prod"
• Vampire Master Dark Crimson, "Published in several European languages, so these need to be checked out for reviews"

• Added links to French & German coverages in talk page. --KrebMarkt 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Xenon (manga), "With French and German releases, I believe that a search for reviews in those languages are due"
• Yubisaki Milk Tea, "rm prod per ref dumb on talk page"
• Saijō no Meii, replaced it with a redirect to the author's article. Give that it was only published in Japan and Taiwan we have yet to establish routine third-party coverage of manga in either of those countries, I though it better to redirect until someone find the necessary coverage. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• A Bad Boy Drinks Tea!, proposed a merge or redirect to author's article
• Tell Me A Lie, Redirected to Gosho Aoyama
• Steel Ball Run, proposed a merge or redirect to author's article
• 3rd Base 4th, Redirected to Gosho Aoyama

—Farix (t | c) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deprodded Zetman "French coverage found pass WP:BK #1" --KrebMarkt 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also redirected Senkōka Rubikura, Shugen Byakuryū Rubikura, and Acony (manga) to their respective authors' articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Tetsunagi Kooni to the list of redirects. —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Found the author of Area no Kishi, Tadashi Agi, and redirected the article there. —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those prods were all me. Thanks for deprodding the ones that can be improved. --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP has apparently go through and reversed some of the redirects stating that they must go through AfD first. I've restored the the redirects as the IPs edits are clearly disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Small update 10 more to go. --KrebMarkt 10:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest looking into Ahiru no Sora because it is a long running series that has consistently on the bestseller list. So there is a slim potential for coverage by reliable Japanese third-party sources for it. If the North American market wasn't so hostile to sports anime and manga, it probably would have been licensed by now. For the rest, I recommenced sending to AfD. All of them don't have any international publications beyond Taiwan to suggest potential coverage by reliable sources. Though it is probably best not to do them all at once, but in groups of three or less. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, especially on the group size. There's also one or two others that have a chance on the order of Ahiru no Sora's, but that can get sorted out in AfD, if not too many clog up the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Area no Kishi redirected

I sent Akkan Baby to AfD after deprod by our Ip guest because i was the one who tagged it for notability nine months ago. --KrebMarkt 20:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Umi no Misaki and Tetsunagi Kooni are now at AfD. I just hope that we will see the end of it someday. --KrebMarkt 09:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

2/3 Ai no Kyōkaisen is at AfD. --KrebMarkt 06:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Listed for deletion as of July 10, 2010:

• GE – Good Ending (AfD)
• Cage of Eden (AfD)
• 3.3.7 Byooshi!! (AfD)
• Shibao (AfD)

That leaves only three more, two are long running series and the other is a light novel. Even though A Town Where You Live is not on this list, I proposed a merge/redirect to the author's article if no reliable third-party sources are found. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've merged A Town Where You Live into the Suzuka articles, as it's a sequel. --Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Manga wiki

I adopted the manga wiki and have imported more than two thousand manga articles listed here in the category "Manga series". [1] Anyone know a way to import over the entire histories instead of just the most recent version, without having to save each one of them one by one? I have AutoWikiBrowser. Does it have a setting for that somewhere? Also, is there a list of every manga article that's ever been deleted? Or just any article ever deleted that has the category manga series in it. Would an administrator be able to easily search for that, and userfy them all for me so I could transwiki them all at once? Dream Focus 10:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your question is probably better answered at WP:TRANSWIKI as only administrators have access to those tools, as far as I know, so only they would know how they work. I seriously doubt, however, that any admin would be willing to undelete every last article on manga ever deleted in the history of Wikipedia. That would be a ridiculously time consuming task, as I would imagine tens of thousands of articles have been deleted in the history of Wikipedia, and I do not think there is a way administrators can search their contents. The closest list is likely Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive, which of course you are already aware of, but it only goes back to 2004 (sporadically then), and of course includes hoaxes and other made up stuff which I'd sincerely hope you have no desire to transwiki anywhere. In either case such a request would probably be best made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Neither item is anything most project members here can really assist with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking they had a search function to search all deleted files for the category listed in the article. Anyway, if any manga fans see an article which is up for deletion that they believe should be saved somewhere, such as one which has been published for years in a notable manga magazine with a high circulation, just copy and paste it over to manga.wikia.com with a tag to where the article originated from. Dream Focus 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why must we have another "comprehensive" database of manga on the internet? Isn't ANN's database good enough and wouldn't it be better to put your effort into improving it instead of creating your own? —Farix (t | c) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANN's database is vastly different than a wiki. New entries to the database must be approved by an ANN staff member, and there is a backlog of over 1000 submissions. Because of this, it can take years for a newly submitted title to be added to the database (they prioritize certain categories of manga such as things licensed in English). Also, while anyone can add most information to ANN encylopedia entries, only a staff member can remove incorrect information. There is also a huge backlog of error reports, and it can often take years for errors to be corrected. So I can see the use of having a freely editable comprehensive manga database. Calathan (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANN really isn't much more than a listing of titles and basic info. I actually have no problems with the manga wikia being expanded to include the many series that are not notable here, particularly if it helps calm down the tension over manga/anime deletions here. A wiki does provide a more structured outlet (when well managed) for more extensive plot and "fan" type information. I do think though it is asking a bit much to expect any admin to take the time to transwiki all of those articles that have been deleted over the years. From my understanding, it would be a fairly time consuming task and seems a rather high expectation when it doesn't improve Wikipedia itself. I think you (Dream Focus) might be better served just asking for maybe the ones from the last month or two, then asking for future ones in your keep !votes in AfDs (if deleted, please transwiki). It would be much better for Wikias, at least if they ever wish to have an air of legitimacy, to focus more on having their own content rather than relying too heavily on the stuff "thrown away" (for lack of a better euphemism) by Wikipedia. Be its own thing instead of a bad imitation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 33 million people a month visit wikia. Whenever people Google for something, they'll usually see the wikia results appear just under the Wikipedia, and they'll know where to go for more information about what they are interested in reading about. Importing things just saves time, and helps get things started, no sense having to rewrite everything from scratch, it all the same information. And of course, if you are interested in reading about an extremely popular manga that has been published in a major manga magazine for years now, then the only place to find that is the wikia, since this group has done a fairly good job of "throwing away" those articles. Dream Focus 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you also intend on importing character, episode and other miscellaneous entries? G.A.S^talk 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out to me. I'll grab them as well. Dream Focus 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your other question (re: export with history) Does Special:Export help (I have never used it before, so I am not aware of its capabilities)? G.A.S^talk 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried that, but the examples listed don't work. I posted last November about it on the proper page [2] but got no reply. Others mention problems as well in various places, it not working right. Dream Focus 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does the history matter a great deal? Most of the editors of those articles likely aren't Wikia users, and from my understanding of the license, you just need to say where you got the specific version copied over, rather than needing to include the entire edit history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about CC-BY-SA 3.0, but the GFDL requires the history (or authors, at the very least) to be preserved in some way - usually, linking to the relevant Wikipedia article, whether in the edit summary of the edit in which the content is copied or via an attribution template, is sufficient, since Wikipedia's copy of the article can be reasonably expected to stay right where it is indefinitely and the GFDL allows linking to the history as a bare minimum. However, pages up for deletion must be handled differently to satisfy the GFDL - the most obvious solution is to export the whole history, which becomes unavailable to most individuals on Wikipedia once the page is deleted; otherwise, I believe providing a list of authors is sufficient (but don't quote me on that; copyright isn't my area by any means). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was discussed elsewhere in detail, and it says as long as you credit it to the original contributors its fine. So the thousands of manga and manga related articles I imported just the most recent version of, link back to the Wikipedia where people can see who created the content. Anything that is up for deletion worth saving, I then save the entire history, and import that. This of course fails in cases where the total history is a file 10MB or larger, in which case it can not be imported. But my best attempt is always made. Dream Focus 09:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind, I've never seen any such tool - the closest an administrator could come is by doing full-text searches on individual revisions of deleted pages, which defeats the purpose of the search in the first place, or by downloading and searching through older database dumps, which requires a decidedly different skill set than most administrators have and may be rather iffy anyways depending on just how far-reaching bugzilla:23264 and related bugs are. Your best bet is probably to just keep an eye on what passes through the slaughterhouse, grabbing relevant pages as they come up, and then asking at DR for individual articles that look interesting. I'm quite excited to see you finally using your energy in a manner everyone could agree is constructive, by the way! Drop by and say hello some time on the YGO Wikia. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can also search deleted pages by prefix ("Show pages starting with:"), but that will not really help here. G.A.S^talk 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can...

Just for the record so far 3 of these have been deleted with List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow up to bat for being deleted. I know more of them are going to be deleted but out of the ones listed here which do editors feel are keep worthy?:

• List of fictional characters with telekinesis
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate cold and ice
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate water
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity
• List of fictional characters who can generate and manipulate radiation
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate light
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate time
• List of fictional characters who can alter probability
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate gravity
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound
• List of fictional characters who have super strength
• List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds
• List of fictional characters who can teleport
• List of fictional characters who can fly
• List of fictional characters who can poison
• List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction

Darkness

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, none of them. They all suffer from the same basic issues of being WP:OR cross-categorizations of trivial, and overly broad natures. Glad to see they are finally being dealt with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research. Many of the entries on those lists don't even have articles. I've been trying to keep an eye on these lists and add them to WP:DELSORT/ANIME as they come up and if the lists contain a number of anime and manga entries. —Farix (t | c) 02:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the last list is probably the most encylopedic as that it talks more about common troupes.陣内_Jinnai 02:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am for keeping the ones where they have an entry on the overarching subject (e.g. Telekinesis), but none of the others. These pages really aren't helping the project at their best, but the ones that are supplements to subjects that are themselves non-notable are REALLY not helping the project. --erachima talk 04:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As erachima says, while adding Teleportation to the subset that have main articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of all of them the one that I can see as a possible keeper is List of fictional characters who can fly, the list can be worked on to include notable examples and these do exist in comics (Example: Superman). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this and other discussions, I have nominated the majority of the set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Your input would be appreciated. --erachima talk 06:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming of music articles

Question for the project: I am planning to create separate music articles for Angel Beats! and K-On!, but there seems to be a discrepancy between the way music articles are named. Is it better to name the article Music of XXX (e.g. Music of Final Fantasy I and II) or List of XXX albums (sometimes "soundtracks" or "character song singles" are substituted for "albums") (e.g. List of Popotan soundtracks)? It would be nice to set some guidelines to distinguish among them. Thanks for the input. Arsonal (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think we even need separate music articles for those series? All of the info that would go on separate music articles could easily be put in the main article, including creation/conception and sales/reception. The only thing that can't go in the main article are the track listings, but then those aren't important enough to warrant a whole new article either.--十八 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I've gathered of the series, Music of K-On! is probably a core enough subject to the franchise that it could eventually be split out as its own worthwhile article. As a general rule, however, we don't need to create separate lists for the show music, as it's a minor aspect best covered in the primary article. --erachima talk 04:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Split for soundtracks is situational. If handling the soundtracks in an exhaustive way within the main article unbalance it, split. By exhaustive i mean completeness in the enumeration of the releases and charts rankings NOT in the inclusions of track lists. Even without track lists Soundtracks are already expensive in KBs with a 1 or 2 references per sentence ratio.

Note: For K-On! there is consensus to split it and the ref dumps is at Talk:K-On!#List_of_K-On.21_albums. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Several of the Angel Beats! (Girls Dead Monster) music releases actually charted pretty high, so that fulfills the one of the criteria for notability. Arsonal (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notability, I'm talking about practicality. Does it make sense to create a separate Angel Beats! music article when any and all information could (and already is) available on the main article? I can live with a K-On! music article if you insist because it has a God awful number of albums and singles, but Angel Beats! only has six, definitely not a huge amount, even though several of them charted fairly high.--十八 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better for practicality purposes. A lot of our articles are held up in nominations for promotion because people complain that whole sections are just regurgitations of release dates. Introducing more meaningful prose that can serve as a proper summary will be beneficial, leaving the dates themselves to the daughter page(s). Arsonal (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Creating a content fork for such a purpose is not recommended, and often makes it harder to locate information; this is one of the reasons why this project has tried so hard over the past few years to work towards consolidating a bunch of articles into one or two. The general rule of thumb is, if it can easily be merged into a main article, then there's no reason to have it in a separate article. Angel Beats! is not going to get that much larger, aside from reception (indeed, I am already planning to make it more focused), so splitting off a bunch of release dates just for the sake of it is something I cannot agree with. It won't hurt the main article to keep it as it is. Like I said, there are only six music releases; not that many, and there will be no more to come in the foreseeable future. Unlike K-On! which has albums coming out all the time.--十八 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the separate article is only intended for release dates; I would also oppose such a move. The guideline you have linked to does not discourage summary style forking. If indeed Angel Beats! needs to be more focused, I don't see why a separate music page would not help it along that path. I would rather see the article be more focused on the artistic production rather than the incorporating too much stuff about its music. Arsonal (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the question of naming, we really don't have any standard. The current situation seems to be basically "what did I just see five minutes ago, or what makes the most sense to me at the moment". Although I do have to say, the overall situation seems to be slightly improved over the last time I looked through the category. As to a recommendation, I would say matching the style of our other list types - "List of X albums/soundtracks/singles/..." (exact terminology would depend on what the list is actually covering). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Dinoguy, although I have to agree with Juhachi that Angel Beats with 6 does not qualify for a stand-alone list. I don't see those compelling reasons for Angel Beats!.陣内_Jinnai 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The way i was doing was list of soundtracks, and singles would simply be listed as such "list of title soundtracks' but if it included the themesong aswell and legacy, it would be called 'Music of Title' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 July 2010

Since I forgot to mention it before, and didn't remember until now, I'd like to note that, for naming, my second choice is "Discography of X" - it seems to me that "discography" is a general-enough term to be correctly applied to albums, singles, OSTs, etc. and in that regard, actually comes quite close to "List of" insofar as my preference is concerned. I would say, in fact, that I would prefer "discography" when there is not enough content to justify further list-level disambiguation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a very plausible alternative, one I might use for K-On! I'm starting to get tired of lists being named "List of". Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discography of TITLE" however I think is the one that would work the least since at MOS:DISCOG, track listings are not to be included in discography articles, and I believe one of the reasons for creating a separate soundtrack/albums list is to include the track listsings. I've been partial to the "List of soundtracks/albums" naming, where "soundtracks" is used when only music albums are listed, and "albums" is used when both music and other albums, such as drama or radio CDs, are also included. "Music of TITLE" would work too, but only for the former case.

But let me reiterate (mainly speaking to Arsonal from here on), that I am now generally against creating such articles, because in my opinion they're much more trouble than they're worth, and unless one or two people are really dedicated to making the article nice, then it quickly dissolves into a huge mess, even more so if said series has a large, number, of releases. I know I'm going to be the one who has to clean up a "Music of K-On!" article, because I know if I don't, no one else will. That's what I've found out in soundtrack/album lists with a lot of releases: no one is dedicated enough to want to maintain such articles because there's too much busy work. If you don't believe me, take a look at List of Clannad soundtracks. I'll tell you this much, adding in those track listings with {{track list}} is a MAJOR PAIN, even for releases like singles with only a few songs. If you're not willing to dedicate yourself to the article, then don't even bother. It'll just turn out to be a huge mess, like 90% of the other soundtrack/album lists out there, many of which I myself started in my first year on Wikipedia, and still pretty much look as they did from 3 or more years ago.--十八 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your dedication, Juhachi, you could at least have some faith in me. I don't mean to belittle any of the work you've done, but I hope my recognized work can attest to the attention I place on my projects. I intend to see my work toward eventual completion. Arsonal (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to belittle any of your work either, but if this is the first time you've been involved with a music article from creation to FL-level quality, then I hope you have a lot of fun with it. I myself have done too many of them, and I don't have the desire to at least start more. One of the things that I've always hated are inexperienced editors who change song and album/single titles from standard formatting to ALL CAPS or all lowercased because that's how it was originally written on the album/single. I'm sure you won't mind reverting countless IPs who change "Go! Go! Maniac" to "GO! GO! MANIAC" on a weekly basis.--十八 07:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This actually is not, but I definitely see where you are coming from. Such changes are just part of the routine for me; I already deal with fan inexperience at the Chinese entertainment WikiProject. Arsonal (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame; "Discography" feels to me like the most "organic" title for such lists. I personally don't care for "Music" as much, not least because these lists could in theory include non-music releases, but I guess that's just me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanator RS?

Few of our articles are using Japanator as sources. Its About page. I'm guessing its blogs and forum pages are out-of-bounds?

Interviewed by Anime3000: here Brad Rice is Editor-in-Chief of website, Gia Manry is ANN's associate editor and former editor-in-chief of Anime Vice

Interviewed at ANN: ANNcast 211.30.103.37 (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

See above comment re:Danica Davidson. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but it hasn't been taken there.

Does anyone want to discuss this? 27 articles are using Japanator.com as a RS; if it isn't an RS, that is a problem.

I think it's pretty clearly a RS. Publishers like Yen Press and Vertical are willing to talk on the record with Japanator, and it handily satisfies one of our usual rubrics, 'does ANN cite it a lot?' (A few dozen/hundred times, my rough Google search indicates.) --Gwern (contribs) 09:18 20 July 2010 (GMT)

It's been low on my plate to check this out. Yeah, poking about, I concur with your assessment. Looks RS to me, for those reasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week or more since this was first brought up; since it would just be recognizing the de facto situation, I'm going to add Japanator to our Online RS page tomorrow or so unless someone objects. --Gwern (contribs) 05:23 23 July 2010 (GMT)

I think it would be best to have it discussed at WP:RSN, to ensure neutral discussion and evaluation, and to avoid issues later as RS' that have been reviewed here have been questioned since because it was just a "project" consensus. Myself, I don't really think its RS just because its editor has appeared on some ANN podcasts and like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was ANN articles I was looking at. Anyway, I don't mind taking that risk. Project-outsiders haven't objected to it yet, nor have they objected to many (any?) of the dozens/hundreds of sites & sources on our RS page. YAGNI, as the programmers say. If there is no advantage to doing something in advance and you might not need to do it at all, why bother? --Gwern (contribs) 06:15 23 July 2010 (GMT)

Ojamajo Doremi

I'm requesting help for Magical DoReMi. On an old topic on this talk page, some users and I agreed on renaming Ojamajo Doremi into Magical DoReMi as the latter is the best known internationally, but also agreed to keep the original Japanese names for the characters as Toei's English website uses them and 4Kids has only licensed the first series.

What I'd like to do is to gather together other articles and rename them accordingly. While the main article is still named Magical DoReMi, there are articles like List of Ojamajo Doremi characters, Ojamajo Doremi discography, and List of Ojamajo Doremi episodes. I've separated the episode guides into List of Magical DoReMi episodes (season 1), List of Magical DoReMi Sharp episodes, List of Magical DoReMi 3 episodes, and List of Magical DoReMi 4 episodes, but I need to link them to List of Ojamajo Doremi episodes. Thanks. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i would say change the titles and both names, since we go by official English name first, and common English name second (of course exceptions apply). I suggest you do not separate them yet though, it seems like undue weight to split the article and still maintain the main one. Maybe you could list the links to the episodes in the main article in the same way Sailor Moon does.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No we don't as that goes against policy and if the guideline says that it needs to be brought into line. We use offical names because 99% of the time they are the most commonly used name.陣内_Jinnai 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

well they use it for the characters. i saw it on the discussion once, they use it because it allows it not to add in the fan-translation over the actual name.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we do use WP:COMMONNAME for most article, but when it comes to anime and manga, we go by official first. Just to clear up that it's not all articles, just the anime/manga ones.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh! My Goddess articles

I'm pretty sure this was said a while back but, I've been wanting to fix the Oh my Goddess articles and i noticed a few things. The main article has a section dedicated to the universe and another section that show's Norse Mythology references. I don't think these references are important even if they were sourced but I'm having trouble with the Universe section. Since i don't know the story of Oh My Goddess! as well as most, I'm afraid i might delete something important and no one will revert it.

The list of albums need a lot of work. For one, they need to be placed in the proper templates (track listing and nihongo), not a table. Another is add more information. I think the current format actually makes it harder to add more information. I think the best template would be this.

Example

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"English" (eigo (英語))	Artist	00:00
Total length:			00:00

I placed the first album in the article to show you what the tracklists could look like.

Aa! Megami-sama! - Music and Short Story Track Listing

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Coming Out of a Mirror" (Kagamiwo Nukete (鏡をぬけて))	Kappei Yamaguchi	4:02
2.	"Drama Part 1" (Dorama Ichibun (ドラマ・一分))		0:16
3.	"Our Campus Idol Is a Goddess" (Kyanpasu · Aidoruwa Megami-sama (キャンパス・アイドルは女神さま))	Seikou Nagaoka	4:39
4.	"Drama Part 2" (Dorama Nibun (ドラマ・二分))		3:24
5.	"The Dashing Motor Club" (Tsuppashiru Jidoushabu (突っ走る自動車部))		3:15
6.	"Drama Part 3" (Dorama Sanbun (ドラマ・三分))		0:49
7.	"Leave It to Me" (Ma~kasenasa~i!!! (ま~っかせなさ~いっっっ))	Naoko Matsui	3:52
8.	"Drama Part 4" (Dorama Yonbun (ドラマ・四分))		2:16
9.	"here Is the Lucky Star?" (Rakkii · Sutaa wa Dokoni? (ラッキー・スターはどこに?))	Seikou Nagaoka	4:26
10.	"Drama Part 5" (Dorama Gobun (ドラマ・五分))		1:31
11.	"Spirits!" (Seirei-tachiyo (精霊たちよ))	Seikou Nagaoka	3:11
12.	"Drama Part 6" (Dorama Rokubun (ドラマ・六分))		0:39
13.	"A Town with Goddess" (Megami-sama no Iru Machi (女神さまのいる町))	Seikou Nagaoka	5:09
14.	"Drama Part 7" (Dorama Nanabun (ドラマ・七分))		0:19
15.	"I Shall Be Here Forever" (Itsumademo Kokoni Imasu (いつまでも ここにいます))	Noriko Hidaka	3:59
16.	"Drama Part 8" (Dorama Hachibun (ドラマ・八分))		1:00
17.	"Ah! My Goddess" (Aa! Mai Goddonesu! (アー!マイ・ゴッドネス))	Noriko Hidaka, Naoko Matsui, Chisa Yokoyama	5:05
Total length:			47:52

Other than that, the only main problem is overly detailed biographies on the individual characters articles and remove some things that make the article in an in-universe style. Does anyone think they can help out?Bread Ninja (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We were suppose to be making an alternative tracklist for the readability issues. I don't know what happened with that.陣内_Jinnai 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a good setup in my opinion. But another problem is the list of oh my godess chapters. due to the first 20 books being westernized, i was thinking makin ga seperate section for them but without the chapters. Anyone think this is a good idea?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Having worked extensively on the chapter list myself, I'd welcome other views as well. I would like to point out a couple of things, though: generally, separate sections for different releases of the same series (most often tankouban vs. bunkoban/kanzenban/etc.) aren't wanted and FLC reviewers (AFAIK) will ask for them to be removed; and the first 20 volumes are being rereleased to exactly follow the Japanese tankouban release (it's up to about volume 16 by now) - when this is completed, I am considering simply only listing this release, and just noting the first releases in the lead. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

that's what i was thinking aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese translation request

If anyone is able to, I'd like to request a translation of an image here. The text around the large image in the center of the page. I'm wondering if any of it relates to Baccano!, which is the subject of the image. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 19:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing about Baccano!. It's a message talking about the 18th Dengeki Novel Prize, and is asking those interested to participate. The Baccano! image is there probably because Baccano! won the Gold Prize in the 9th round in 2002.--十八 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Too bad there's nothing new I can use. Ah well. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Highschool of the Dead problem

I guess it is because the series is popular, but recently, I've been having problems with random IPs changing the airdates for the episodes dispute the fact that the airdates are sourced to Anime Newtype Chanel. I've already placed a request for page protection but I would like more support on the article. I'm not sure if there is a coordinated effort offsite because these edits are coming in at a high rate and from different location. —Farix (t | c) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've set it up so it requires changes by new and unregistered users to be approved. So, if it's on your watchlist, you may see it pop up that there are pending changes which need approval (or disapproval). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

After some extensive research i found the first airdates from AT-X are sooner than Newtype Channel.

Ep 01 Ep 02 Ep 03 Ep 04 Ep 05 Ep 06 Ep 07 Ep 08 Ep 09

Very unsure that those schedules to be archive-able however AT-X schedule page can go back to January 2003. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Poking. Can i change the airdates using AT-X as reference? --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, the AT-X source seems much more plausible, as it doesn't give an airdate of tomorrow for an episode that aired ~20 hours ago. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moar non-manga as manga

The usual problem of somebody insisting something that is not manga be tagged with infoboxes and categories as such at D-Cyber. Reporting here rather than triggering WP:3RR. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok fixed. The next time you encounter such situation use talk page to point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/World comics work group and replace infobox for those found at Template:Infobox Asian comic series. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Octave (manga)

Do people think this series passes WP:NBOOK? It's been reviewed by Erica Friedman of Yuricon fame, and I'm thinking about doing an article on it. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not with just one brief review. On top of that, Erica's "review" doesn't have any depth to it as she discussions more about why the manga will not be licensed than actually reviewing the work. So you will need at least a couple more reviews that are much more in-depth than this one. —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To be accurate Erica Friedman fellowed the Ja releases vol. 1 review vol. 2 review vol. 3 review vol. 4 review.

and the short article mentioned above is to fellow-up Six announcements we'd love to hear in San Diego this week & All are welcome. --KrebMarkt (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As M. Kreb notes, Friedman has reviewed it multiply in depth. However, that's only one reviewer -- I'd be a lot happier if even one other reliable source noticed it before concluding the series is notable. Either that or a licensing announcement -- that'd give news coverage and the strong likelihood of additional reviews, which point starting the article might be premature but supportable. (Yes, assuming reviews is a bit crystal-y, but it is indeed a very good series, of the sort that catches critical attention for the quality of characterization.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One more source would be great to have at least opinions from 2 different sources. Will it get licensed in English difficult to tell but for something yuri & in Kodansha's Afternoon the prospect is limited knowing that stuff like Vinland Saga or Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō have yet to make it in North America. Alternatively licensing in France is a definite possibility, Aoi Hana get licensed there even before the anime adaptation run. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Book request - Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation

The PR has noted the lack of page numbers and has requested them. If anyone has this book please help with this.陣内_Jinnai 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is partially available on Google Books, if that helps. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our Reference Library, Nihonjoe has a copy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RS check on Anime Academy

[3] - I'm asking because they appear as though they have some level of editorial oversight and have several interviews. However they've only been mentioned by one RS [4] and even then it was an offhand mention about the quality of their reviews.陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Is it worth reporting an IP? The IP 159.182.1.4 is once again deprodding Anime/manga articles without any given reason and has had a history of making WP:Point Arguements. Research into the IP says it is registered to NCS Business Systems which has multi users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It may simply be a matter of deletion rational. The IP didn't deprod Refrain Blue which had a pretty extensive deletion rational. I've taken the rational used at Refrain Blue and started two AfDs for Billion Girl and Yandere Kanojo. I am currently checking into A Six Feet Girl for any reliable sources. However, I'm not holding out much hope for it either and will probably list it at AfD within the next few minutes. —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me also state that when the proposed deletion process was originally introduced, there were a number of editors who would go through Category:All articles proposed for deletion and were deprod articles because they disagreed with the whole process. But nothing was done about it despite several complaints at WP:ANI over the disruptive behavior. Eventually these editors gave up. So I seriously don't think reporting the IP will do any good. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove a prod for any reason or no reason, so there is nothing against policy about what this person is doing. You can ask that he gives an edit summary in the future, but even that isn't required. Calathan (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay ah well no use in going for it then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just go directly to AfD when handling with a manga if in doubt drop a line here before sending to AfD. PROD on manga is a waste of time. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

With this IP around, unfortunately Kreb is right. Unless it is a non-blatant hoax, the IP will just rip the PROD off. Unfortunately, because they are hiding behind an IP, even an RfC/U would be useless. Might be worth asking about at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to be sure, but it is hard to deal with behavioral issues with IPs that skirts policy, even if he is being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How much i want to trout that IP in a RFC/U :(

What's bothering me the most aren't the deppodring themselves but this IP not defending its view in those article AfDs. One must assume its convictions and defend them. This IP lacks gallantry. --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that this IP has now been blocked for his removal of prods. Though I can understand that people feel his actions are disruptive, my opinion is that the prod process allows for removal or prods in this way, and that it is therefore inappropriate to block someone for removing prod tags. I'm sorry to complain about the block of someone who people clearly find annoying, but I feel that enforcing a requirement to give a reason for removing a prod in effect modifies the proposed deletion process. I don't think it is appropriate to effectively modify the proposed deletion process in this way, and instead think that the appropriate solution to a situation like this is to start a discussion on modifiying the prod rules in order to require a reason be given when removing prod tags. I'm planning to discuss this with the blocking admin. Calathan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this IP removing PRODs what's is problematic is/was that it never replied on its talk page, never explained its depproding, never explained why those articles are relevant to Wikipedia in AfD. Its total refusal to interact with others on PRODs & AfDs subject can be viewed as rejection of collaborative works in a "I don't hear and i don't want to reply" style. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the block is fine as long as it is expressed as being for refusing to communicate with other users anywhere, and not expressed as being for removing prods without giving a reason. After talking with the blocking admin, it seems clear to me that he was blocking because the user refused to communicate with users anywhere, so I'm now ok with the block (though I'm hopeful someone will clarify to the user that it is for refusing to communicate and not just solely for removing prods without reason). I'm not against blocking this user, just against changing the way prod works without discussion. Calathan (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I also see that the user had been warned prior for mass removal of prods without reason and looking at the top of this page it seems the ip had been doing this for a month now. I agree though if this user had been blocked just for removing prods it would be another story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that the IP got blocked. However, I don't think it will do any good. As soon as the block expires, the IP will go back to the same disruptive behavior as always. —Farix (t | c) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Comic Con/New York Anime Festival

While updating the info for the New York Anime Festival I noticed this link: [5] saying that the New York Comic Con and the anime festival are going to co-locate this year, is this going to have any effect on anything? The Anime festival is listed as The comic con at animecons.com. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"While the two events will have separate guest rosters and programming schedules, they will share a common show floor and one ticket price. Each ticket will give an attendee access to both events." Here are details from ANN and the original press release. Arsonal (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge cleanups

Here is a list of article that received merge outcomes at AfD, however, no merge has yet taken place.

• Mobile Citizen (SD Gundam) – redirected to Superior Defender Gundam Force
• George Glenn
• Siegel Clyne
• Stand (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)
• RGC-80 GM Cannon

Well not counting the JoJo's merge, I do not know enough about the manga's to know where to merge the articles in their resting places. Is there someone who is fimilar with the anime/manga these have to be merged into? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one working on the Gundam Seed character merges, but stopped when those two non notable characters were not deleted so I gave up. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the characters are not getting their own articles, I dont know what title the Gundam SEED characters would go under though Secondary characters? Minor Characters? If those two characters are really that minor than maybe they should be relisted and deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would actually suggest just redirecting them to the list article. I would have when ahead and done it, but thought I give someone a chance to place a concise summary on the list. I'm not sure what to do with the RGC-80 GM Cannon as I don't know which UC series it originated from. But the RGC-83 GM Cannon II section has already been incorporated into List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory mobile weapons. But the list itself could use some major copyediting and cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Cartoon DataBase RS?

Just spotted this site being added to the External links of Ulysses 31 via a template. While only a handful are anime, this template is in use on over 100 articles. I'd never heard of this site until today and the corresponding article has been previously deleted for being non-notable. It does seem genuinely useful provided the information is correct, although there's no sources cited so there's no way to know if someone transcribed the credits or just copied it all off IMDb. Looking at the title that lead me there, they rather confusingly have Ulysses 31 listed twice under the English and Japanese titles and have Telemachus and Numinor spelt multiple different ways on the same page. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I consider that site nothing but spam that has snuck in through that darn template. It really should be deleted along with all links. It isn't even close to being big enough, like IMDB, to be given considered a good WP:EL. That its article got recreated is just sad (though not surprising seeing who made it). The site is certainly nowhere near meeting WP:RS as it is pretty much one guy's personal website[6] even though he refers to "we" (who we is is never said). Koch himself is not involved in the industry nor any one important, just someone who made a list of cartoons and kept growing his site from it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the website that will indicate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, the errors you've already spotted is probably a good indication that there is no fact-checking going on. I even noticed that there is a link at the bottom of the page where you can submit more information. As an external link, it does not stand out as a quality link that will be helpful to the reader. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to reference English VAs?

Well, maybe not impossible if I can find a source. Recently, I've been thinking about fixing up List of Eyeshield 21 characters (including some mergers and improving individual character articles when they can be saved). I also began a new draft on one of my subpages. The only thing really keeping me from going in-depth is that I'm trying to avoid spoilers until I can read the last few volumes, which VIZ will release in months to come. In any case, I came across a roadblock when one main character didn't have an English VA listed, and ANN and even IMDb have been of no help. In addition, I can't find a reliable source for the other VAs. Eyeshield 21 was given a dub, but it seems as though only a few episodes, maybe 5, were actually released (via Toonami Jetstream).

I managed to find an old episode and look at the credits, but it doesn't list roles, just a cast list (they also spell Patrick Seitz as Patrick Sietz!). Sentai releases DVD and Crunchyroll streams, but both are sub-only. It really seems like the dub has been lost...Does the Wikiproject or Wikipedia have a policy regarding this? Or, better yet, does anyone have a reliable source for these VAs? On ANN, most are sourced with Toonami Jetstream, but it redirects to a different site, and I doubt anyone has the original page archived. I've only been able to find an official source for Tony Oliver. Here's the ANN listing. The only other website source they use is this thing and I really don't know if it's official or not. Would this issue get in the way of getting it to featured list/good article status later on? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if there is no source at all, not even the episodes themselves, then the voices will have to be removed to make featured list, and the lead should note that only X eps were dubbed and released publicly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I figured that would be the case...If lacking them doesn't interfere with getting articles to FL or GA then I don't mind, though. I don't know how many episodes were released with the dub, but I do have a source that says Toonami Jetstream stopped releasing new episodes of Eyeshield 21, even before they went under (in addition, it seems like episodes were cut and merged together, but without official confirmation I rather keep away from numbers). Luckily, the English VAs aren't vital information, as the dub remains incompletely released, hasn't been legally available in years, and the VAs for some major characters are still unknown. I suppose I can just mention which actors were used in the lede, but note that they were not credited for specific roles, sans Tony Oliver who lists the role on his official site. The rest I can just cite with an episode. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd note in the lead about the dubbing and its being shortened, which should be all the explanation needed. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that :) Thank you for the help! Uh, but should I note Tony Oliver's role? I do have an official source, but I'm worried it would feel awkward with only one character having a listed VA. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is the only one, I'd probably just note in the lead while discussing the aborted dub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks again! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming references works

In case anyone has a spare $30-40, in October, Phaidon Press is releasing Manga Impact (Amazon), which seems to be a sort of encyclopedia/essay anthology of anime. I have high hopes for it since one of the main contributors also runs Italy's Locarno filmfest which has had a lot of important people attend it.

I'll probably ILL and scan it, but if someone beats me to it, that'd be swell. --Gwern (contribs) 05:11 24 July 2010 (GMT)

Looks interesting. It appears to have a large authorship base from Europe, which might get some titles the necessary international viewpoints. Arsonal (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Digimon articles

Before being blocked, 159.182.1.4 (talk) tagged a lot of Digimon related articles with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. At one time, anything tagged with {{WikiProject DIGI}} was also considered part of WP:ANIME, so there was no need to double tag the articles. But since then, WP:DIGI has largely become inactive and its template has been converted to using {{WPBannerMeta}} which has dropped all tracking by the WP:ANIME's quality assessment.

So here is the question. Do we want to absorb WP:DIGI as a work group, albeit an inactive one, of WP:ANIME? And if not, to what extent should the two project templates coexists with each other? —Farix (t | c) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. Not everything in the Digimon franchise is anime or manga related. It is possible to split up WikiProject Digimon between us and WikiProject Video games. It should be the same treatment with the Pokémon franchise. Arsonal (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I say absorb it. WP:Digi members are mostly limited to inactive users, users that are on and off, and users that cover a broad range of subjects. While the 2 latter areas aren't negative and many Wikipedians do the same, combined with the inactivity of several others, it means there isn't a strong focus on Digimon-related articles (sans some members that do put much of their effort into Digimon articles). In all, it means a merger wouldn't affect many because the project itself doesn't have a strong hold on articles, and the general Anime/Manga project could be a better resource for questions and concerns. As for what to do with the video games, I ultimately wouldn't mind giving them to the video games project, seeing as the games and Digital Pets were released before the anime series. The exception being if they spawned from an anime or manga series. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the video game people take WP:Digi. I'd always been under the impression that Digimon was like Yu-Gi-Oh - the anime and mangas were supporting the main money-makers of the card & video games - and not so much like Pokemon, where the anime and movies were significant in their own right. --Gwern (contribs) 17:46 25 July 2010 (GMT)

While it may have started off as a virtual pet toy like Tamagotchi, the majority of the franchise centers around the various anime incarnations and its spin-offs/merchandise. Almost all of the video game articles have been tagged with {{WPAnime}} I guess under the assumption that the games are based off of the anime series. I guess I need to do a catscan just to see how big of a correlation there is between the two project banners. —Farix (t | c) 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that Digimon as a whole should be absorbed as an inactive task force of Anime/Manga, their banner merged/redirected to ours, and someone with AWB can go clean up the talk pages. While they do have some video games and what not, so do many other anime series and I think video games project probably has those pages tagged individually (if not, we always can go through and fix that at the same time). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just completed some catscans to see just how much correlation there is. Of the 153 articles tagged with {{WikiProject DIGI}}, 142 articles are cross-tagged with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}, but only 27 articles are cross-tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}}. 25 articles are cross-tagged by all three projects. It's too early to tell how much of the cross-tagging is legitimate or not until someone goes through the 100 or so articles that the IP had tagged with our banner. —Farix (t | c) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that a merger of the Digimon WikiProject to our WikiProject per the above suggestions. So, we should start merging the Digimon template altogether and cleanup the talk pages. Any objections? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the necessary functionality for absorbing WP:DIGI to our banner sandbox; it can be viewed on the testcases pages. Note that the link and categories are redlinks since I went ahead and used the post-absorption titles instead of the current ones, and that I replicated all category behavior from the current WP:DIGI banner. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I rather lost heart in it all when the bulk of the articles were merged into lists of names. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Attendance charts on convention articles

Over the past few of days, S13854 (talk · contribs) has been adding an attendance chart to the article on Tsubasacon.[7][8][9] I have repeatedly removed the chart and informed the editor that the chart is inappropriate for the article and that the past events table already gives the information, however the editor keeps adding the chart back in.[10] Since I am involved with the convention, I am familiar with all of the staffers nyms, but this isn't one that I recognized.

The question is, are attendance charge like this one useful for articles about conventions or are they just redundant information? —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The line graph seems to give the impression that the attendees from previous years stayed on and new ones came in, which is very unlikely to be the case. A bar chart would be a more appropriate graphical representation of the data, as it would not imply this assumption. I'd sooner see a photo of the convention than a bar chart. --Malkinann (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But it an attendance chart appropriate or not? And so long as the photo is not about cosplayers... —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe whether any attendance chart is appropriate or not might be considered an issue of taste, how to spice up a 'wall of text' and give further information to the reader (such as a whole-room photo of the main hall). I am a little concerned, however, that the attendance data does not seem to be referenced? --Malkinann (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that concerns me is that the picture only goes up to 2010 and will quickly date also yes the numbers remain unreferenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the attendance and guests are all referenced, unless someone has been removing references from AnimeCons.com. —Farix (t | c) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is to remove the picture then, the current numbers speak for themselves and are referenced. The new chart picture to me also is redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the data presented in the article. Some of the attendance numbers conflate paying attendance and staff, and some of the numbers given by animecons.com are only paid attendees. The 2009 estimate is at 900, although the article says 906. --Malkinann (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but the graph just takes those numbers that are currently there and have those references and just shows them in a diffrent way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that is an issue of taste. Some people understand better through visual aids than through reading, is it then redundant to have a bar graph showing the attendees? --Malkinann (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem if the bar chart is kept only if though it has the reliable references attached and is updated per year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it has any value at all. It is a randomly made graph of numbers from the table that do not appear to even have sources themselves. Further, it is excessively large and ripe with WP:OR as it makes no adjustments for factors and appears to just give the impression that the convention's numbers are rising. I don't particularly think the table is any better, though. Attendence should be part of sourced prose on the convention as a whole. And how, exactly, is this convention even notable? It seems to be entirely sourced by convention materials and local papers, and no visible significant coverage that is independent of the topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

the main purpose of the chart is for visual people like me. it take what is given and shows it in a different way. im going to try to resound to all the point people have stated.

1. for the part about my numbers not being referenced. the numbers on the cart come form the numbers in the article, which is referenced.

2. the part about my chart "will quickly date". has soon has the next figures come out of the attendance, i can or any one else with access to excel or any other program that can take raw data and plugs them into a graph or chart. them it becomes a matter of taking out the old one and putting the new one in.

3. the numbers referenced in the article is not correct or is just an estimate so there forth my chart in not correct. yes those number are not the exact number of people who attended to the con. figures involved with events can only be estimated. take the number of tickets sold, you have multiple day ones and single day ones. you have to factor that some people might by a single for day 1 and come back and buy one for day two and not but one for day 3, that person shows up has 2 tickets. the next verbal is you have people who buy tickets and never show up or who show up for there multiple day passe and leave shortly after and does not come back the next two days. factor in staff, press, and people who did not but a tick but found a way in and is use a friends pass who didn't want to come back the next to day. that's 2 people and one pass. when you factor those with the ticket sold you get a rough figure. its just meant to give you some idea of how many people attended.

4. now for the main point that Farix is asking. is an attendance chart appropriate or not. the chart its self is just taking what is already in the article and taking a different look at it. i don't see why it has become such a big problem. it takes a look at the number of people who attended and shows the changed over a period of time. every person will have there own views one what the chart presents, there nether right or wrong they are just what you get out of it.

i just want to say to Farix that just because you don't agree with the way some one wants to present data that is give in a different way you should not delete it. you cant always delete other peoples views. when you said "Since I am involved with the convention, I am familiar with all of the staffers nyms, but this isn't one that I recognized." would it had made any difference if i was a staff member, which would make it a bias article. just because someone is not a staff member dose not mean they have something to offer. the fans sometimes can show something or show something in a way that the staff didn't think to look at. to delete my graph because you say it is not appropriate for the article, you would have to delete the table. saying my graph (which it based off the table)is not appropriate by default makes the table not appropriate ether. - S13854 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

I think the article should include what the manga is rated (teen, older teen, all ages, etc.). Is this a good idea? 74.192.250.56 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible as each country has it's own age group for manga. Also in the U.S.A do companies rate all manga the same or some rate higher or lower age group based on content? There also can be dispute as some countries allow such and such content while others do not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Knowledgekid87. The closest to 'age ratings' we can give is the demographic (shonen, shojo, &c), which isn't really the same thing. Also, I rather doubt any two given licensing companies use the same rating system for manga, as to my knowledge there are no legal requirements to use a particular one in any country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrensath (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such an American-centric idea. For the same reason film articles do NOT include MPAA ratings, we should not include American ratings. They are arbitrary, meaningless, and ripe with systematic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)