Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:Fiction notice

Anime/manga featured articles on the main page

I was noticing that Tokyo Mew Mew says the manga was first serialized staring in September 2000. I was thinking that might mean next month would be a good time to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. However, I know some people don't like featured articles they worked on to be on the main page because being on the main page attracts a lot of vandalism. I was wondering if the members of this wikiproject are interested in having anime/manga articles on the main page, or if people here would be opposed to that. Calathan (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it, if there is alot of vandalism there are people who get on top of that and a page can always be semi protected and reverted. Show vandals no fear people! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The main question would be, has anyone really stepped in as that article's caretaker (being ever mindful, of course, of WP:OWN) since User:AnmaFinotera retired, and if so, would they be willing to go through a potentially increased number of vandal edits? If not, would we as a project be willing to step in and take that role? Even with these questions, though, it would be really, really cool to see one of our articles on the main page, and even if none of us stepped in, I wouldn't doubt there would be *someone* who would. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i'm not against it, but the article would need to get at least 5 points as it doesn't have a relevant specific date in September. Currently it would have:

• Promotion < 1 year = 0pts
• Date relevance: 10yr anniversary = 2pts
• Importance: non-essential = 0pts
• Contributor history = 1pt, possibly (history)
• Diversity: we have a lot of arts & lit FAs = 0pts
• Main page representation: 2pts, possibly - if they deem anime is signfigantly different from other western animation or other Japanese culture. Potential roadblock: Flag of Japan, April 17 (unlikely, but someone might bring that up).

Basically only if we can get all of those, because the quene is full and this would need to go on a non-specific date since we cannot cite one from September 2000. If even one of those is off, we cannot bring it up.

Forgot timing was applicable for non-specific dates. I'll have to see if we can nominate for a specific date if only the month is known or else we only have 3pts tops and have to wait for the current 4pt non-specific to clear.陣内_Jinnai 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-date specific spot is new, and so far it hasn't seemed to be in much demand. My impression is that people are putting things there when they see it is empty, but not usually bumping articles from that spot. So if we want the article to run in September, that might be a good place to nominate it. Calathan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing it on their talk page. The key concern here is whether we can get an exemption for using timeliness for non-specific date. If we can we have 5pts, enough to bump it. If not, we have 3pts, which means the current one (4pts) is kept.陣内_Jinnai 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. There are no timeliness points for the non-specific date spot. An exemption would allow us to pick any date in September, nominate the ariticle for that specific date, and then claim the 2 points. If we use the non-specific date spot, we can't claim those points regardless. Also, please don't bump anything from the non-specific date spot. Articles only stay there for seven days, and also there are currently still openings in August, so the next non-specific date article will probably run in August. There will be plenty of time to nominate an article there in September. Calathan (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The nonspecific date is open if you want to nominate it there.陣内_Jinnai 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this interfere with the retirement of an editor of this article? --Malkinann (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated this in the non-specific date spot. I don't see how it could interfere with AnmaFinotera retiring . . . are you suggesting that seeing an article he worked on on the main page might prompt him to start editing again? Calathan (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More that it draws attention to the article, which draws attention to the major contributors, which may lead to people seeking them out. --Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera has stated quite clearly that she has blocked wikipedia.org to ensure she isn't tempted to return to editing here (I believe she said it in her retirement note, but even if not, she was quite clear in off-site correspondence with her). I'm not sure she even knows the article was being considered here for TFAR. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't even FATHOM how anyone could even think of suggesting that an article shouldn't be on the main page because of one person's choice to stop editing WP. That's really, well, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That person's stated reasons for leaving, I feel, are more than enough to justify raising the question of if TFA would interfere with that person's departure, or exacerbate the behaviour shown by their stalkers. There is no points associated with the month or the ten year anniversary of TMM - renominating it at a later date would give more time for the links back to that person to fade. --Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone new will start cyberstalking him just because they see his name on an article, and the people who already were cyberstalking him wouldn't get any new information from the article being on the main page. I can't see how having an article he worked on appear on the main page could matter. Calathan (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The only potential concern is that she (AnmaFinotera is a she, as she constantly pointed out on her own talk page ;) ) might be tempted to return seeing one of "her" articles on the front page, and as I said above, she has WP blocked, so that becomes a nonissue. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelion MFD result

The MFD for Portal:Evangelion resulted in a decision to merge it to Portal:Anime and manga. Anyone want to tackle this? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

the merge proposals to anime and manga portal don't seem the most logical thing to do. things like this should be either kept or delete. i don't see much use to it if it were merged.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more of the content that should be merged (selected articles, etc.). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Bread. It's a nonsense decision. Ever tried merging a 500g package of salt into a TV dinner? That's what's being asked here. Goodraise 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense or not, it's what people decided. Don't shoot the messenger. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody shooting you. Though I admit, I'm a little upset about the decision. I don't believe that any of them considered for one second the viability, let alone the merit, of such a merge. If I were to seriously merge those portals, it would be tantamount to a redirect. Then someone would undo it all, claiming that no real merge has taken place. In the end, it'll go back to MfD anyway, so why bother? Goodraise 20:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All that really needs to be done is to add the material from that portal to the anime and manga portal (the sections for each are fairly similar). And it should be redirected once the merge is complete, which is perfectly fine. If people undo it, let me know and I'll protect it to keep that from happening. As it is, no one is taking care of the portal and its content is fairly thin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if it had to be merged, i would suggest WP:EVA to be a better place.Bread Ninja (talk)

Exactly how do you merge a portal into a WikiProject? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I say similar way WP:SE has it. but i guess it wont work.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've redirected it and deleted all the supporting pages as there was nothing worth porting over. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Lupin III season 1 episodes should be moved to Lupin III episodes

I feel it should be moved to List of Lupin III episodes seeing as season 1 does not fit in there. Any experienced user's would mind leaving an opinion about this. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no season 2, right? Go ahead and move it. Goodraise 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be advisable to insert a hatnote pointing to the other lists after the move, since it's my understanding that all three series were simply named "Lupin III". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That should be done, but the 2nd and 3rd series are labeled as "Part II" and "Part III" to distinguish them from the first series. The Part II list on wikipedia is already a featured list :) --AutoGyro (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving Star Blazers episodes

I think that all the Space Battleship Yamato articles need improvement really but I wish to focus on the Star Blazers episodes. Any thoughts and opinons would be welcome Talk:List of Star Blazers Episodes. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in action

I'm back after a break do to stress. I see someone has one again made another mess of the Gundam articles that will need to be cleaned up, essentially creating or recreating articles about every character and mobile suit that appears in a Gundam series. I guess I'll work on that first. Then I'll undo Codrdan's reorganization of the anime and manga categories. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "prequel"

A discussion appearing originally in .hack//G.U. article, then asked for third opinion on WP:VG. But since this mostly affects the category of the anime, i ask for anyone who wishes to discuss in it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about Dengeki Daioh demographics

The past, oh, couple weeks I've been seeing the demographics of a several manga series that run/ran in Dengeki Daioh being changed from shounen to seinen, even regardless of sourcing placed on the demographics. Admittedly, this is not a clear-cut thing, as there's disagreement among sources, but the one we've been using the most clearly identifies it as shounen (the magazine targets the upper end of shounen with some crossover). I'm not seeing a pattern of who's doing this, being a mix of editors and IPs, but it's odd seeing this happen now after a long period of quiet.

Just a heads up for something to watch for on your watchlist. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese article says it's both a shōnen and seinen magazine, so that might be contributing to the confusion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox in biographies

Recently, Go Nagai's infobox was changed from a general one to Template:Infobox Comics creator. The change seems logical but, for Nagai and any other manga creators, what fields describe them better? Right now, it's used "art=y", Artist, but I feel that leaves out his work as a writer, like most other manga creators. In my opinion, a "mangaka" would be closer to a "cartoonist" than the other fields, which are more oriented to American comic books.

Also, I've noticed that Naoko Takeuchi is not using Template:Infobox Comics creator but Template:Infobox Writer. Osamu Tezuka is using Template:Infobox Comics creator while Akira Toriyama is using Template:Infobox Person. Are there other infobox templates used? Is there any particular infobox which is preferred for mangaka? Was there a discussion about this topic before? What was the consensus? Because, between Template:Infobox Comics creator and Template:Infobox Person, I'd rather use Template:Infobox person. I'm not too fond of the Western-comics approach of Template:Infobox Comics creator. I even like more Template:Infobox Writer. Jfgslo (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Project page redesign, take one

I've put together a first draft of a redesigned project page and navigation template. This is obviously a rough cut, intended primarily to demonstrate the layout and formatting; I haven't really done any editing of the text itself, which is probably something that would be worthwhile at some point.

There are a couple of main questions with the draft:

1. Does the tabbed layout work for everyone? I've selected a few of the major pages to link to, as well as several new ones that hold material split off from the main project page; what other pages should appear in the tab bar (keeping in mind that only so many tabs will fit on the screen)?
2. How does the navigation template look? There were some concerns about making it too dense, so I've tried to keep the structure somewhat easy for a visitor to follow; is the template itself easy to navigate? What changes should be made to the organization and/or layout of the links? Do people like the sidebar, or would everyone prefer a draft with a (probably modified) full-width box?
3. What should we do about the color scheme? I've mostly kept to the colors of the existing navbox, which focus on light shades of blue; it's pleasantly understated, but may also be too monotonous. Are there other colors that should appear? (I was originally thinking of using the pink shade from the BarnSakura for highlights, but that may be too garish.)

On a tangential note, a few observations I made while collecting links for the navigation box:

• The peer review process appears to have last been used more than a year ago. It's probably worth considering whether an attempt should be made to revive it (either as a stand-alone entity or under some broader umbrella) or whether it should be marked historical and archived.
• A number of subpage talk pages (e.g. the ones for cleanup lists, etc.) are empty except for a project banner. Unless there's a real need to have these pages tracked through the banner, I would suggest redirecting them up to the closest "active" talk page, to avoid having new users leave messages there that never get answered.
• Somewhat more generally, a consolidation of some of the lower-traffic talk pages up to a higher level might be useful for centralizing discussion to venues with a critical mass of participants.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it looks okay, I like the layout but the images are small, and there is no real bar of a top to add to the design. I also liked the green colors better. All in all though I would give this one a 70% - 75% Make the wiki-tan images a bit bigger, and add a top header along with the tabs under that and its a go by me =). This is just my opinion mind you, I will wait for other editors input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • By "top header", do you mean a (decorative) block under the tab row (as in, say, WP:MILHIST), or something above the tab row? If it's the first, then that's easily done; if it's the second, then we're somewhat constrained because anything block-like above the tabs will interfere with the visual impact of the tabs themselves—in other words, a bar above the tabs will make them look like buttons rather than "tabs". It would be possible, I suppose, to put something like a line or two of text there (some sort of "Welcome to the project"-type message, perhaps?), without a border, but I'm not sure if that would be useful. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I personally like the idea, but don't like the headers (title of the sections) is. Soundsa little like jeopardy. you should try not to make each headline a question.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That was actually based on some discussions at WikiConference NYC 2010; apparently, first-time visitors are often confused by our normal dense, jargon-heavy headings, and respond better to headings that are in the form of questions that "walk" them through a page. It's a minor issue, however, and I can certainly change them to the normal style if that's what people prefer. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Though, none of the headlines seem like they would be filled with jargon-heavy headings or be completely Dense if we put them in a normal non-question like manner especially if the opening sentence explains most of it. what's new? can be Announcements and How can we Participate? seems to complicate things just because it's not technically correct. More like Join Wikiproject would be more easier, and it could explain what the wikiproject does. members list doesn't only see who is participating. What Guidelines do we have? can simply be Guidelines, What Awards do we Offer? can simple be Awards, What are other Related Project? can simply be Related Projects. we don't need questions for these sections because you added an explanation on the bottom, and the titles aren't as dense. in fact this helps more the idea you wanted.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough; I'll make those changes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't see the need to redesign our project page. I'm not particularly enthralled by the "tab" layout and the "boxed" layout seems awkward and amateurish. The only good thing about it is that it moves the "Recognized articles" and "Articles that require attention" off the main page. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, we could certainly consider each part of the redesign (split project page, new navigation template, tabbed layout) individually, if that's what everyone prefers; there's no particular reason why all three would need to be adopted as a package. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• I like the proposed layout in general. And while we certainly don't need to redesign the project page, I think the organizational aspect of the tabbed/boxed layout works very well and serves to make more content more easily accessible than having it buried somewhere in the depths of the current page. It may even encourage people to participate more in those areas since they don't have to hunt for them to know they are there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Related wikiprojects should be moved to a dropdown tab like TFs. They essentially serve the same purpose so there's no reason to have TFs there, but related/descendant/parent wikiprojects.

  I'm also not sure "Showcase" is the best descriptor for our Feature/good articles. FE, "Showcase" could theoretically include showcasing Wikipe-tan since she has become a widely popular mascot.陣内_Jinnai 19:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • By "dropdown tab", I assume you mean a collapsing block in the navigation template? It would be pretty trivial to add links to the related projects there, but the drawback would be that using the "related changes" tool on the template would list edits to all of those projects, most of which would probably not be relevant to anyone here. This could be mitigated to some degree by linking only to the project pages, not their talk pages, since those are probably lower-traffic; but there would still be some unrelated changes mixed in.
  • As far as "showcase" is concerned, it's a fairly common term among projects for pages listing their featured/good/etc. material (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Showcase, etc.), but if anyone has a different term they'd like to see used, that can always be done. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • For the nav template, I think that would be worth it. It makes things look consistant and there are times when easy access to what has changed in say WP:Japan may be relevant to someone reading the page.
    • Well I don't think its obvious to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedian practices. Also it exists elsewhere is not a reason why we must do so here anymore than it applies to articles; if it did, nothing would ever change.陣内_Jinnai 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, fair enough; but what name should we use for that page, then? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Quality Articles or something along that line.陣内_Jinnai 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Okay, done. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Coming late to this part of the discussion, but another one often used is "Recognized content". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Related to the tabs, here's another way to do the tabs that would allow for a header: Portal:Energy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would work if we moved that first paragraph in there and put the news coverage at the top.陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I can put together a draft of that design, if people are interested in seeing one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Could be useful to have some options.陣内_Jinnai 00:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree. If you can throw together an example, that would be awesome. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification.

I have nominated List of Naruto characters for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.