Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Berserk

I split the Berserk (manga) page in two a few pages. The manga page had turned into an article about the series, rather than the manga. I created:

• Berserk (anime)
• Berserk Golden Age Arc

They need work, images and a lot. Feel free to give input. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they shouldn't have been split. Manga article has a lot of unsourced information that could be original research and not a lot of reception, the anime reliable sources are only being reception. Also Reception shouldnt be all about scores and they shouldnt be in a table. Try to expand the reviewers inputLucia Black (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should have never been split. We don't create separate articles for anime & manga of a same franchise because one is an adaptation of the other with a lot of redundancy in terms of plot and characters descriptions besides increasing the difficulty to update each article evenly. Another point is that on the instant you create a spin-off article, you should be more than ready to justify why the article can pass any Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. In your case you would have to provide evidences for the manga, the anime & the movie adaptation separately which i doubt you have the means to achieve a such feat.

That said, i won't argue further with you as i'm no more an "active" editor but i have to point you why it's going to be a trainwreck eventually and mediocre editing show off. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Anime article has been merged back again. I'm not sure what to do about the Infoboxes for the movies. Does each one deserve an infobox? There could be as many as 10 films released, and that many infoboxes would fill the entire article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject but I could lead you to some articles that you can use as a reference. Case Closed and List of Case Closed films. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSE milestone: 4k URLs on blacklist as it enters year 3

http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4

To mark the second anniversary of this useful tool (I began it in January 2010), I have added in approximately 700 new domains to the white and blacklists while cleaning up most past queries.

While I'm at it, I've decided to make my work still more publicly available: the exported black/whitelist of my CSE is available at http://www.gwern.net/docs/gwern-google-cse.xml and I plan to sync it every 3 months.

Many happy searches. --Gwern (contribs) 20:40 9 February 2012 (GMT)

• Throws confetti in the air* Woo!!!!!!! lol - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations for the anniversary. Just wondering, but could you redirect www.gwern.net/cse or cse.gwern.net to the CSE to celebrate the occasion? :P -- クラウド６６８ 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the former, but be aware that the redirect will likely break when/if I ever switch my hosting from NFSN (which gives me an Apache .htaccess) to Amazon S3. --Gwern (contribs) 21:39 9 February 2012 (GMT)

Should terminology sections be kept or should its contents be incorporated into the Setting section?

I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Unless you know the basics behind the plot without some of the terms the reader may not understand it. The terms are explained in the manga books on the first page or so and on the DVDs usually as they important to understanding the story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But couldn't those terms just be incorporated into the Setting section's text? Of course, no one will be able to understand the plot of Naruto without knowing what a Jutsu is, or a person won't be able to understand some of the plot twists in Madoka without knowing what a Grief Seed is, but do these terms need their own section? Couldn't the most important terms just be incorporated and the trivial ones be moved elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Removal. I have not heard of a plot that is so complicated it needs its own terminology section. Most of the time, if written clearly, a plot overview can be enough to detail the outline for general readers. Looking at your example, Shakugan no Shana, the plot has an unformal tone and can be rewriten so a terminology section is unnecessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. Terminology sections do more damage then most realize. They put more focus on the details of the story and gives the articles a fancruft tone. It also makes articles more in-universe and make story sections more complicated than they need to be. Just having the basic outline of the story is enough.Lucia Black (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – The terminology sections do need to be kept to a definition of terms and if short can be incorporated into the plot section as prose or a subsection, but any series that has a large number of unfamiliar terms should have a section to explain them. – Allen4names 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a large number of terms, several series have. But the problem is the inclusion makes it so dependent to in-universe focus. WHich i'm sure we are all aware of. So far, there has not been one single article with terminology sections that does more benefit than harm. It gets in the way of briefly explaining fictional aspects.Lucia Black (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with the concerns by Knowledgekid87 and Allen4names, the terminology sections are very important to understanding a manga's story. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But to what degree and what cost?Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong removal Ugh, when your terminology section is twice as long as your plot section, then you've really bungled. What's distressing is that each of these terms completely fails at being succinct, all rambling on for a paragraph's worth of cruft. Each term should be summed up in a sentence, and then that sentence should be inserted into the text itself at the first mention of the term. Shakugan no Shana seems to already do this anyways. Agree with Lucia Black, these do a lot of damage to credibility.--Remurmur (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel like no one wants to find a way to write a plot without it. And I highly doubt terminology sections inclusion will help any article reach up to at least B-class. Alot of series have dozens of terms, and yet theyre not that common. Does bleach make termilogy section to explain soul reapers or Hollows? Are these terms "necesary" to understand the "basic" plot? How about this, how about we "prove" how necesarry they are. Can we honestly say the inclusion of these said terms wont affect an article affecting its GA or FA status? So if i add a terminoloogy section to said GA/FA and give it a GAR/FAR, can we still say the story wont be affected? This is about fiction itself, the usage of terminology section also expands to novels or tv shows. A GA-class TV series with alot of terms deserves a terminology section, do we all believe if i included terminology section, and give it a review, it will still stay as GA-class? I really want to hear your answer.Lucia Black (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• keep. I am not an expert in this subject. When I come to an article here, it's to find out the basics about something about which I previously have no knowledge. The pure narrative description of plot, introducing everything along the course of it, is confusing. It may be clear to those who know the work well, but these are notthe primary audience. The concepts in these fictions are generally very strange to me, and it really helps me have some idea what the work is about to have them set out clearly. The relevant policy is that WP is a general encyclopedia, and is written for the general reader--sometimes it willl meet the needs of a specialist also, but that can't be counted on. Encylopedic material is material that helps understanding of the topic, and these concept sections do just that. (There is also the point that it is a lot easier to write such sections, than to write clear plot descriptions. Writing readable accounts of complicated plots is an art, that most WPedians who work on these and other fictional topics have not mastered. A less skilled person can describe something concrete; a continuous narrative is much harder.). DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then if it wasnt so narrative, it would be easier to understand? A very complicated series known as Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex has a very simple layout. It all depends on how you want to write it. Like i said, lets put terminology to the test. I also feel this isnt fitted to just this article but in all media aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please also note that I do not know any featured article or good article that has terminology sections. Even InuYasha and Bleach do not have terminology sections. Anime does, but it is more of an etymology section, it is in prose form, and is sourced and not written in a fan-crufty way, which cannot be said of most terminology sections, which is why I would rather have them incorporated into the Setting section's text. Besides, shouldn't terminology sections, should they be kept, be written from a real-world perspective? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes but i dot think anyone hear wants to expand on the discussion. Rather its being left to vote count. And unfortunately the wikiproject isnt as busy as it use to be and, some are aware of this aswell. I havent even seen a B-class article have a terminology section. We all know theres a way to write them without them.Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be greatly interested in hearing Jinnai's opinion, but he hasn't edited since January 31st. I could also ask WhisperToMe's opinion, but I don't think he contributes to the project anymore. Besides, I'm not for their total removal, just their content's integration into the Setting section. Actually, there is a World of Naruto article, but it has many problems, but at least it has a "Creation and conception" section. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree intergrading it into the setting is best, it also helps choose whats most relevant to understand the basic plot. Some may expand to make a world of naruto but there needs to be some form of third party reliable source. Such as reception section. Thats why splitting story elements from the main article are often discouraged.Lucia Black (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Moon discussion

The recent mediation case on Sailor Moon (English adaptations) has been closed and Lucia Black (talk · contribs) has opened up an important discussion about whether we should merging it into the main article Sailor Moon. There is a strong consensus on the mediation that it should be merged with the main article itself. As such, we are planning to clean up and remove unreliable sources from the article. Input and suggestions from project members would be very much appreciated. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation.... Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleach Season 9

Hello, This is the first time I post here and hope I did it right. Anyway, I wanted to ask about the Filler arcs of Bleach. Recently I edited the page List of Bleach episodes (season 9). When I first see the page, it's says "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series with the same name by Tite Kubo", which is wrong, this season is not based on manga. So I edited the page, deleted the "based on the manga.." part and added "This season is a filler arc, which are not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo.". But User:Tintor2 undid my revision. After I explain it's wrong and edited again, this time he look away the line I wrote.Hokaru (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Filler or not, it's still based on the manga: It's simply not a direct adaptation. For compromise, it should read something like, "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series of the same name by Tite Kubo, is the first season to use a completely original storyline." The word "filler" should probably be avoided for its negative connotations.--Remurmur (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Im pretty sure it wasnt the first one.Lucia Black (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to readd Kubo's credit in the last edit.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, if the word "filler" is not allowed, then why not just write "This season is not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo." Or "The series is based on Bleach manga by Tite Kubo. Unlike the other seasons, season 9 is not direct adaptation from the manga". Or "Unlike the other seasons, season 9 is an anime-only arc". People who watch the anime and didn't read manga will not know that season 9 did not take place in manga. Adding that this season is not direct adaptation from the manga would prevent confusion. And yup, season 9 isn't the first filler season. Hokaru (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source stating that. Its like how some editors had tried to push adding manga chapter to their respective episodes. They insisted using a primary source to state that the anime is an adaption of a certain chapter; this was considered original research. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt it being considered original research. There must be a term for such story arcs that arent based from the original storyline when a reliable source is talking about it.Lucia Black (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only bringing up an old discussion where they determined using primary sources to determine what chapters were covered in what episodes as original research. What I meant in my first sentence was to provide a reliable source then the editor can do what he wants. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, alright. So I just need to provide a reliable source. So, at the starting of episode 168 itself, the narrator said that "The battle against Arrancar still rages on, but we will pause before continue that tale. Now, a new story like none before it will unfold. The curtain is about to raise on a strange battle." Can someone tell me how do I cite the episode? I never cite from certain episode/manga before, so I am not really sure. Please advice.

And another source, the season 9 first DVD 「BLEACH」“新隊長天貝繍助”篇DVD, it's said "アニメオリジナルストーリーの“新隊長天貝繍助”第一巻"" which translated as "Anime original story "The New Captain Amagai Shūsuke" Vol.1" This link is taken directly from Offical aniplex 新隊長天貝繍助篇 DVD page, they are reliable source. Did I need to cite both (episode 168 and DVD)? Or just the DVD will do. Hokaru (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Needing help from somebody who has the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha from January 30th

The January 30th issue of Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha (issue 1) has an interview with Naruto author Masashi Kishimoto involving not only the series but the author's personal life. The official site has the first page and I managed to find a script confirming everything that is said in interview. However, I can't find an author of the interview or the page. As far as I could complete it, the citation would be:

• "Interview with Masashi Kishimoto". Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha. Viz Media. 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Text "author" ignored (help)

Is there anyone who has access to the issue and has other parameters to add? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaucers

Would you please comment about the Japanese title of Dinosaucers at its talk page?--Mujaki (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)